<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_12_223241</id>
	<title>US Coast Guard Intends To Kill LORAN-C</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263300300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adaviel writes <i>"LORAN (Long Range Aids to Navigation) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio, used by many boaters (including me) before GPS. It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war. <a href="http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1806">The US Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, intends to turn it off</a> starting February 8."</i> This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>adaviel writes " LORAN ( Long Range Aids to Navigation ) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio , used by many boaters ( including me ) before GPS .
It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war .
The US Coast Guard , part of the Department of Homeland Security , intends to turn it off starting February 8 .
" This is in spite of $ 160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adaviel writes "LORAN (Long Range Aids to Navigation) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio, used by many boaters (including me) before GPS.
It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.
The US Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, intends to turn it off starting February 8.
" This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745654</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic. You got that part right at least.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them."<br>Okay...<br>1. The DOD depends on GPS and matains the network. So what are you talking about countries wanting to take responsibility for the GPS network? The US DOD does.<br>2. You do not repair or modernize GPS satellites... You replace them.<br>3. GPS is going to keep working until it is replaced with something else or the US stops being a nation.<br>"Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?"<br>You use the backup? You don't really think that a ship would only have one do you?<br>The reason to keep both was that many operators spent a lot of money on Loran and GPS was expensive. Now GPS is cheaper and more reliable than Loran.<br>Your arguments are along the lines of "We should keep paying for hitching posts on our streets so we can keep horses as a back up for cars."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail , and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them , or repairing them. " Okay...1 .
The DOD depends on GPS and matains the network .
So what are you talking about countries wanting to take responsibility for the GPS network ?
The US DOD does.2 .
You do not repair or modernize GPS satellites... You replace them.3 .
GPS is going to keep working until it is replaced with something else or the US stops being a nation .
" Further , what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship ?
" You use the backup ?
You do n't really think that a ship would only have one do you ? The reason to keep both was that many operators spent a lot of money on Loran and GPS was expensive .
Now GPS is cheaper and more reliable than Loran.Your arguments are along the lines of " We should keep paying for hitching posts on our streets so we can keep horses as a back up for cars .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them."Okay...1.
The DOD depends on GPS and matains the network.
So what are you talking about countries wanting to take responsibility for the GPS network?
The US DOD does.2.
You do not repair or modernize GPS satellites... You replace them.3.
GPS is going to keep working until it is replaced with something else or the US stops being a nation.
"Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?
"You use the backup?
You don't really think that a ship would only have one do you?The reason to keep both was that many operators spent a lot of money on Loran and GPS was expensive.
Now GPS is cheaper and more reliable than Loran.Your arguments are along the lines of "We should keep paying for hitching posts on our streets so we can keep horses as a back up for cars.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750398</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1263397740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy.  It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips...(</p></div><p>Checkout Starfish Prime <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish\_Prime" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish\_Prime</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar.</p></div><p>This was a small bomb, and it disabled several satellites.  A larger bomb, placed right, could do real damage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device , not an actual strategy .
It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips... ( Checkout Starfish Prime http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish \ _Prime [ wikipedia.org ] From the article : While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth 's magnetic field and illuminated the sky , other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth .
There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition , magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation .
The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled .
These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit .
Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics , including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever , Telstar.This was a small bomb , and it disabled several satellites .
A larger bomb , placed right , could do real damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy.
It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips...(Checkout Starfish Prime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish\_Prime [wikipedia.org]
 
From the article:While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth.
There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation.
The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled.
These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit.
Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar.This was a small bomb, and it disabled several satellites.
A larger bomb, placed right, could do real damage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749480</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's some bullshit right there.</p><p>The highest private rocket ever flown has reached orbit, thankyouverymuch. SpaceX, anyone?</p><p>A nuke in orbit doesn't have to deliver much energy directly. A nuke in orbit simply throws a lot of energetic particles around, and they are in the beautiful environment of vacuum, like, you know the particle accelerators on Earth are, and all that jazz.<br>What's worse, those particles are just of the right kind to wreak havoc in semiconductor-based devices.</p><p>On Earth the high-energy particles from a bomb blast can't travel very far. In space, though, it's a whole another story.<br>It doesn't take much to take a satellite off line. All you need is to zap a few key transistors. It doesn't take all that many particles of the right energy to do that.</p><p>What's worse, due to presence of Earth's magnetic field, many of those energetic particles won't simply escape into deep space. They will be kept orbiting the Earth. That dramatically increases the chances of them hitting something useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's some bullshit right there.The highest private rocket ever flown has reached orbit , thankyouverymuch .
SpaceX , anyone ? A nuke in orbit does n't have to deliver much energy directly .
A nuke in orbit simply throws a lot of energetic particles around , and they are in the beautiful environment of vacuum , like , you know the particle accelerators on Earth are , and all that jazz.What 's worse , those particles are just of the right kind to wreak havoc in semiconductor-based devices.On Earth the high-energy particles from a bomb blast ca n't travel very far .
In space , though , it 's a whole another story.It does n't take much to take a satellite off line .
All you need is to zap a few key transistors .
It does n't take all that many particles of the right energy to do that.What 's worse , due to presence of Earth 's magnetic field , many of those energetic particles wo n't simply escape into deep space .
They will be kept orbiting the Earth .
That dramatically increases the chances of them hitting something useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's some bullshit right there.The highest private rocket ever flown has reached orbit, thankyouverymuch.
SpaceX, anyone?A nuke in orbit doesn't have to deliver much energy directly.
A nuke in orbit simply throws a lot of energetic particles around, and they are in the beautiful environment of vacuum, like, you know the particle accelerators on Earth are, and all that jazz.What's worse, those particles are just of the right kind to wreak havoc in semiconductor-based devices.On Earth the high-energy particles from a bomb blast can't travel very far.
In space, though, it's a whole another story.It doesn't take much to take a satellite off line.
All you need is to zap a few key transistors.
It doesn't take all that many particles of the right energy to do that.What's worse, due to presence of Earth's magnetic field, many of those energetic particles won't simply escape into deep space.
They will be kept orbiting the Earth.
That dramatically increases the chances of them hitting something useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745608</id>
	<title>Cost/benefit</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263305520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LORAN (Long Range Aids to Navigation) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio, used by many boaters (including me) before GPS. It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.</p></div><p>Wait -- they're talking about decommissioning a redundant technology and relying on one that the military spends millions on and is mission-critical to its functioning (and thus in no danger of suddenly going offline)?  Why is this sudden outbreak of common sense being maligned? I wish our government did this more often!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LORAN ( Long Range Aids to Navigation ) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio , used by many boaters ( including me ) before GPS .
It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.Wait -- they 're talking about decommissioning a redundant technology and relying on one that the military spends millions on and is mission-critical to its functioning ( and thus in no danger of suddenly going offline ) ?
Why is this sudden outbreak of common sense being maligned ?
I wish our government did this more often !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LORAN (Long Range Aids to Navigation) is an electronic navigation system using low-frequency radio, used by many boaters (including me) before GPS.
It has an approximately 200m accuracy and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.Wait -- they're talking about decommissioning a redundant technology and relying on one that the military spends millions on and is mission-critical to its functioning (and thus in no danger of suddenly going offline)?
Why is this sudden outbreak of common sense being maligned?
I wish our government did this more often!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747650</id>
	<title>Janet Planet NiggerPolitian ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263323040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has demanded a Klingon Dildo to vibrate with KH-15 overpasses of Chevey Chase, and DC.</p><p>She has diverted 20 Billion US $ to cover the development cost and pledged to suck the skin off of the penis that dilevers.</p><p>Observer #1:  Janet Planet is an ugly bitch!</p><p>Observer #2:  I'd never let my pinus near her mouth.</p><p>Observer #3:  That's not enough!  I want 20 Buttzillion in Pounds Sterlling as a signing agreement and another 20 Buttzillion Pounds Sterlling as a payment for allowing my pinus in her mouth!  My penius has Constitution, State, Local and Internation rights I'll have you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has demanded a Klingon Dildo to vibrate with KH-15 overpasses of Chevey Chase , and DC.She has diverted 20 Billion US $ to cover the development cost and pledged to suck the skin off of the penis that dilevers.Observer # 1 : Janet Planet is an ugly bitch ! Observer # 2 : I 'd never let my pinus near her mouth.Observer # 3 : That 's not enough !
I want 20 Buttzillion in Pounds Sterlling as a signing agreement and another 20 Buttzillion Pounds Sterlling as a payment for allowing my pinus in her mouth !
My penius has Constitution , State , Local and Internation rights I 'll have you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has demanded a Klingon Dildo to vibrate with KH-15 overpasses of Chevey Chase, and DC.She has diverted 20 Billion US $ to cover the development cost and pledged to suck the skin off of the penis that dilevers.Observer #1:  Janet Planet is an ugly bitch!Observer #2:  I'd never let my pinus near her mouth.Observer #3:  That's not enough!
I want 20 Buttzillion in Pounds Sterlling as a signing agreement and another 20 Buttzillion Pounds Sterlling as a payment for allowing my pinus in her mouth!
My penius has Constitution, State, Local and Internation rights I'll have you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</id>
	<title>One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1263305700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely no use for Loran C. You currently have the following systems in place backing each other up. Many cheaper and better. In fact, many of these most likely will vanish soon.<br>1. GPS, LAAS, WAAS, DGPS<br>2. Galileo, EGNOS,<br>(as well as GLONASS and Baidu)<br>3. Inertial<br>4. Visual navigation (computer with terrain sensors, including sonar and radar)<br>5. Also VOR, DME, ADF, NDB, ILS, TLS, MLS, Marker beacon<br>with the final fallback<br>6. Old fashion navigation with compass, light houses, sextant, chronometer etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely no use for Loran C. You currently have the following systems in place backing each other up .
Many cheaper and better .
In fact , many of these most likely will vanish soon.1 .
GPS , LAAS , WAAS , DGPS2 .
Galileo , EGNOS , ( as well as GLONASS and Baidu ) 3 .
Inertial4. Visual navigation ( computer with terrain sensors , including sonar and radar ) 5 .
Also VOR , DME , ADF , NDB , ILS , TLS , MLS , Marker beaconwith the final fallback6 .
Old fashion navigation with compass , light houses , sextant , chronometer etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely no use for Loran C. You currently have the following systems in place backing each other up.
Many cheaper and better.
In fact, many of these most likely will vanish soon.1.
GPS, LAAS, WAAS, DGPS2.
Galileo, EGNOS,(as well as GLONASS and Baidu)3.
Inertial4. Visual navigation (computer with terrain sensors, including sonar and radar)5.
Also VOR, DME, ADF, NDB, ILS, TLS, MLS, Marker beaconwith the final fallback6.
Old fashion navigation with compass, light houses, sextant, chronometer etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746246</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>the\_Bionic\_lemming</author>
	<datestamp>1263310140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems.</i></p><p>Which is cool, because like, the US citizens paid to launch it and get it going?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus as it stands , the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems.Which is cool , because like , the US citizens paid to launch it and get it going ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems.Which is cool, because like, the US citizens paid to launch it and get it going?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749114</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263388860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison.</p></div><p>Off topic comment - the EU's main problem is that it is a Confederation, which by nature makes it difficult to accomplish things.  The US tried that before they established a federal system; but judging by how hard it was to get 13 newly independent states to agree back then makes me wonder if the EU, whose states have an even more complex history and longer independence will ever be able to move to a strong federal EU government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison.Off topic comment - the EU 's main problem is that it is a Confederation , which by nature makes it difficult to accomplish things .
The US tried that before they established a federal system ; but judging by how hard it was to get 13 newly independent states to agree back then makes me wonder if the EU , whose states have an even more complex history and longer independence will ever be able to move to a strong federal EU government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison.Off topic comment - the EU's main problem is that it is a Confederation, which by nature makes it difficult to accomplish things.
The US tried that before they established a federal system; but judging by how hard it was to get 13 newly independent states to agree back then makes me wonder if the EU, whose states have an even more complex history and longer independence will ever be able to move to a strong federal EU government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750304</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic. You got that part right at least.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1263397380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I bet you they don't have a Loran receiver. I suggest they spend the $300 or so dollars and pick up backup handheld GPS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I bet you they do n't have a Loran receiver .
I suggest they spend the $ 300 or so dollars and pick up backup handheld GPS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I bet you they don't have a Loran receiver.
I suggest they spend the $300 or so dollars and pick up backup handheld GPS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746064</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1263308460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you always this paranoid about the U.S. government?  Seriously, the Russians have had their version of GNSS flying for 35 years, and you can buy a completely non-American GLONASS receiver that will give you the same data as an American (made in China, of course) GPS receiver.  We know full well that we don't have a monopoly on global navigation.</p><p>They are shutting LORAN-C off because it's expensive to maintain a separate system, especially one that is not nearly as accurate as GPS, and is at risk of terrestrial attack (a determined terrorist group could easily destroy a critical LORAN-C tower, but the same group does not have physical access to the GPS satellites.)  In addition, its consumers are not widespread, and are already using GPS for their primary navigation systems.</p><p>You should think before you make up bogus conspiracy theories.  They make you look kind of crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you always this paranoid about the U.S. government ? Seriously , the Russians have had their version of GNSS flying for 35 years , and you can buy a completely non-American GLONASS receiver that will give you the same data as an American ( made in China , of course ) GPS receiver .
We know full well that we do n't have a monopoly on global navigation.They are shutting LORAN-C off because it 's expensive to maintain a separate system , especially one that is not nearly as accurate as GPS , and is at risk of terrestrial attack ( a determined terrorist group could easily destroy a critical LORAN-C tower , but the same group does not have physical access to the GPS satellites .
) In addition , its consumers are not widespread , and are already using GPS for their primary navigation systems.You should think before you make up bogus conspiracy theories .
They make you look kind of crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you always this paranoid about the U.S. government?  Seriously, the Russians have had their version of GNSS flying for 35 years, and you can buy a completely non-American GLONASS receiver that will give you the same data as an American (made in China, of course) GPS receiver.
We know full well that we don't have a monopoly on global navigation.They are shutting LORAN-C off because it's expensive to maintain a separate system, especially one that is not nearly as accurate as GPS, and is at risk of terrestrial attack (a determined terrorist group could easily destroy a critical LORAN-C tower, but the same group does not have physical access to the GPS satellites.
)  In addition, its consumers are not widespread, and are already using GPS for their primary navigation systems.You should think before you make up bogus conspiracy theories.
They make you look kind of crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747590</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have them ask the big O for some bailout money..  I mean, they will have to stop working to get any assistance but I'm sure they can do that..  Then in 10 years they will be 10 times the size of the Navy with 50 times the funding and all the swabbies will have their LES take-home slashed so that these guys can keep an old system up and running long after it's run it's course, so to speak...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have them ask the big O for some bailout money.. I mean , they will have to stop working to get any assistance but I 'm sure they can do that.. Then in 10 years they will be 10 times the size of the Navy with 50 times the funding and all the swabbies will have their LES take-home slashed so that these guys can keep an old system up and running long after it 's run it 's course , so to speak.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have them ask the big O for some bailout money..  I mean, they will have to stop working to get any assistance but I'm sure they can do that..  Then in 10 years they will be 10 times the size of the Navy with 50 times the funding and all the swabbies will have their LES take-home slashed so that these guys can keep an old system up and running long after it's run it's course, so to speak...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745864</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And 200m is no better than GPS with SA on! In fact with differential techniques or something like WAAS you can still get ~10m accuracy which is why we don't turn it on any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And 200m is no better than GPS with SA on !
In fact with differential techniques or something like WAAS you can still get ~ 10m accuracy which is why we do n't turn it on any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 200m is no better than GPS with SA on!
In fact with differential techniques or something like WAAS you can still get ~10m accuracy which is why we don't turn it on any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746348</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263311040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Australians who protested against the construction of our LORAN station can now count their activities as a Job Well Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Australians who protested against the construction of our LORAN station can now count their activities as a Job Well Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Australians who protested against the construction of our LORAN station can now count their activities as a Job Well Done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. is not the only country providing GNSS services.  Russia has long had the GLONASS satellites; although their constellation has had some problems and does not currently provide 100\% coverage over the globe (Russian coverage is at 100\%, though, and I suspect U.S. coverage is near 100\%.)  Magellan makes commercially available GLONASS receivers, and I suppose others do as well.  You can purchase dual GPS/GLONASS units, and the U.S. and Russia are in talks regarding bringing them to a common protocol so they'll be interchangeable if you have a receiver that picks up both frequencies.  And the GLONASS program is receiving assistance from India, so there's more of an international approach to their program than just a Russian system.</p><p>I also know that China has their COMPASS satellites, but I don't know their status, or if there are commercially available receivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. is not the only country providing GNSS services .
Russia has long had the GLONASS satellites ; although their constellation has had some problems and does not currently provide 100 \ % coverage over the globe ( Russian coverage is at 100 \ % , though , and I suspect U.S. coverage is near 100 \ % .
) Magellan makes commercially available GLONASS receivers , and I suppose others do as well .
You can purchase dual GPS/GLONASS units , and the U.S. and Russia are in talks regarding bringing them to a common protocol so they 'll be interchangeable if you have a receiver that picks up both frequencies .
And the GLONASS program is receiving assistance from India , so there 's more of an international approach to their program than just a Russian system.I also know that China has their COMPASS satellites , but I do n't know their status , or if there are commercially available receivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. is not the only country providing GNSS services.
Russia has long had the GLONASS satellites; although their constellation has had some problems and does not currently provide 100\% coverage over the globe (Russian coverage is at 100\%, though, and I suspect U.S. coverage is near 100\%.
)  Magellan makes commercially available GLONASS receivers, and I suppose others do as well.
You can purchase dual GPS/GLONASS units, and the U.S. and Russia are in talks regarding bringing them to a common protocol so they'll be interchangeable if you have a receiver that picks up both frequencies.
And the GLONASS program is receiving assistance from India, so there's more of an international approach to their program than just a Russian system.I also know that China has their COMPASS satellites, but I don't know their status, or if there are commercially available receivers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759622</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1263392940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To the idiots who claim that just because the DoD depends on GPS sattelites they're not going to let them fail, please do some damn research before nailing my karma. Here are just a small handful of sources backing what I'm saying. Googling "gps satellites failing" will give you a few thousand more.<div><ul>
<li> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=1799" title="zdnet.com">http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=1799</a> [zdnet.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown</a> [guardian.co.uk] </li><li> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184550/GPS-satellite-close-breakdown-fail-2010--leading-motorists-straight-trouble.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184550/GPS-satellite-close-breakdown-fail-2010--leading-motorists-straight-trouble.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk] </li><li> <a href="http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/05/18/daily24.html" title="bizjournals.com">http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/05/18/daily24.html</a> [bizjournals.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/gps-satellites-to-start-failing-next-year/" title="digitaltrends.com">http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/gps-satellites-to-start-failing-next-year/</a> [digitaltrends.com] </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the idiots who claim that just because the DoD depends on GPS sattelites they 're not going to let them fail , please do some damn research before nailing my karma .
Here are just a small handful of sources backing what I 'm saying .
Googling " gps satellites failing " will give you a few thousand more .
http : //blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/ ? p = 1799 [ zdnet.com ] http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown [ guardian.co.uk ] http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184550/GPS-satellite-close-breakdown-fail-2010--leading-motorists-straight-trouble.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] http : //sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/05/18/daily24.html [ bizjournals.com ] http : //www.digitaltrends.com/international/gps-satellites-to-start-failing-next-year/ [ digitaltrends.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the idiots who claim that just because the DoD depends on GPS sattelites they're not going to let them fail, please do some damn research before nailing my karma.
Here are just a small handful of sources backing what I'm saying.
Googling "gps satellites failing" will give you a few thousand more.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=1799 [zdnet.com]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown [guardian.co.uk]  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184550/GPS-satellite-close-breakdown-fail-2010--leading-motorists-straight-trouble.html [dailymail.co.uk]  http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/05/18/daily24.html [bizjournals.com]  http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/gps-satellites-to-start-failing-next-year/ [digitaltrends.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745760</id>
	<title>More USCG and DHS waste</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1263306360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't terribly shocking. Both agencies also wasted millions of tax payer dollars on the failed "Deep Water" initiative, which sought to modernize some of the Coast Guard's old vessels: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823448.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823448.shtml</a> [cbsnews.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't terribly shocking .
Both agencies also wasted millions of tax payer dollars on the failed " Deep Water " initiative , which sought to modernize some of the Coast Guard 's old vessels : http : //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823448.shtml [ cbsnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't terribly shocking.
Both agencies also wasted millions of tax payer dollars on the failed "Deep Water" initiative, which sought to modernize some of the Coast Guard's old vessels: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823448.shtml [cbsnews.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750232</id>
	<title>Once again Slashdot is 6 moths too late</title>
	<author>harrytuttle777</author>
	<datestamp>1263396960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the process has been going on for a LONG time.  Slashdot readers are just finding out about it now because they are not 'in the know', and the DHS likes to play things close to the hip.  There is such a thing as For Official Use Only.  Just because the tax payers are footing the bill does not mean that they actually have any right to know what is going on in their Coast Guard.

Here is the whole story.  LORAN has been kept online until now because it provides a cost effective backup to GPS.  The entire LORAN constellation can be kept up for much less then the price of 1 satellite, if someone should decide to take it out.  GPS can be jammed fairly effectively. There are plenty of plans on the internet to do just that.  My favorite one has a GPS jammers attached to a balloon that travels overhead.  Thankfully our enemies are not very creative.  LORAN uses a 1 MW Medium Frequency transmitters that are much harder (or would require much more power) to jam.

The chain is being taken down because, President Obama needs a token cost cutting measure to give to the U.S. public in face of a massive budget increase.  I am for saving money, but he is going about it in a misguided manner. The major cost from LORAN is not the equipment. It is the people you have to pay to staff LORAN stations in far off places like Attu.  The problem is that he is not getting rid of these people.  These people whose sole job is to take care of LORAN are being transfered into other jobs in the Coast Guard where they were not needed before, and are not needed now.  There are about 100 individuals.  If we could fire these individuals due to needs of the service, we could really save some money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the process has been going on for a LONG time .
Slashdot readers are just finding out about it now because they are not 'in the know ' , and the DHS likes to play things close to the hip .
There is such a thing as For Official Use Only .
Just because the tax payers are footing the bill does not mean that they actually have any right to know what is going on in their Coast Guard .
Here is the whole story .
LORAN has been kept online until now because it provides a cost effective backup to GPS .
The entire LORAN constellation can be kept up for much less then the price of 1 satellite , if someone should decide to take it out .
GPS can be jammed fairly effectively .
There are plenty of plans on the internet to do just that .
My favorite one has a GPS jammers attached to a balloon that travels overhead .
Thankfully our enemies are not very creative .
LORAN uses a 1 MW Medium Frequency transmitters that are much harder ( or would require much more power ) to jam .
The chain is being taken down because , President Obama needs a token cost cutting measure to give to the U.S. public in face of a massive budget increase .
I am for saving money , but he is going about it in a misguided manner .
The major cost from LORAN is not the equipment .
It is the people you have to pay to staff LORAN stations in far off places like Attu .
The problem is that he is not getting rid of these people .
These people whose sole job is to take care of LORAN are being transfered into other jobs in the Coast Guard where they were not needed before , and are not needed now .
There are about 100 individuals .
If we could fire these individuals due to needs of the service , we could really save some money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the process has been going on for a LONG time.
Slashdot readers are just finding out about it now because they are not 'in the know', and the DHS likes to play things close to the hip.
There is such a thing as For Official Use Only.
Just because the tax payers are footing the bill does not mean that they actually have any right to know what is going on in their Coast Guard.
Here is the whole story.
LORAN has been kept online until now because it provides a cost effective backup to GPS.
The entire LORAN constellation can be kept up for much less then the price of 1 satellite, if someone should decide to take it out.
GPS can be jammed fairly effectively.
There are plenty of plans on the internet to do just that.
My favorite one has a GPS jammers attached to a balloon that travels overhead.
Thankfully our enemies are not very creative.
LORAN uses a 1 MW Medium Frequency transmitters that are much harder (or would require much more power) to jam.
The chain is being taken down because, President Obama needs a token cost cutting measure to give to the U.S. public in face of a massive budget increase.
I am for saving money, but he is going about it in a misguided manner.
The major cost from LORAN is not the equipment.
It is the people you have to pay to staff LORAN stations in far off places like Attu.
The problem is that he is not getting rid of these people.
These people whose sole job is to take care of LORAN are being transfered into other jobs in the Coast Guard where they were not needed before, and are not needed now.
There are about 100 individuals.
If we could fire these individuals due to needs of the service, we could really save some money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745666</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Clueless Moron</author>
	<datestamp>1263305820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>200m is the absolute accuracy (and is a bit pessimistic).  The <em>repeatable</em> accuracy is much better.
</p><p>
That is, if you sail into a port's harbour channel and save that as a LORAN-C waypoint you will typically be able to get back to that same spot within 20m or so easily.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>200m is the absolute accuracy ( and is a bit pessimistic ) .
The repeatable accuracy is much better .
That is , if you sail into a port 's harbour channel and save that as a LORAN-C waypoint you will typically be able to get back to that same spot within 20m or so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200m is the absolute accuracy (and is a bit pessimistic).
The repeatable accuracy is much better.
That is, if you sail into a port's harbour channel and save that as a LORAN-C waypoint you will typically be able to get back to that same spot within 20m or so easily.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263323640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people with anti-sat missiles are the same people who are operating the GPS satellites (the USAF); and the Chinese.  (I suppose we can presume the Russians or Japanese could come up with something if they needed to, also.)  And in both cases, the anti-sat missiles demonstrated were able to strike low earth orbit targets, in the range of a few hundred kilometers in altitude.  GPS satellites are in medium earth orbits, which at 20,000km are considerably further away than any anti-sat missile ever tested has struck.  Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown hasn't even reached orbit yet.</p><p>Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy.  It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips, (taking out both GPS and LORAN-C receivers at the same time,) but at those distances even a big nuke would deliver little more energy to the satellites than a flashbulb.  The birds themselves are separated from each other by distances of over 30,000 km, so even if your nuke got close enough to damage one it's safely distant from all of the others.</p><p>Space is really, really big.  Mind-bogglingly big.  These satellites are very, very safe right where they are.  Not even James Bond could take out enough of them to be disruptive, but I'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people with anti-sat missiles are the same people who are operating the GPS satellites ( the USAF ) ; and the Chinese .
( I suppose we can presume the Russians or Japanese could come up with something if they needed to , also .
) And in both cases , the anti-sat missiles demonstrated were able to strike low earth orbit targets , in the range of a few hundred kilometers in altitude .
GPS satellites are in medium earth orbits , which at 20,000km are considerably further away than any anti-sat missile ever tested has struck .
Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown has n't even reached orbit yet.Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device , not an actual strategy .
It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips , ( taking out both GPS and LORAN-C receivers at the same time , ) but at those distances even a big nuke would deliver little more energy to the satellites than a flashbulb .
The birds themselves are separated from each other by distances of over 30,000 km , so even if your nuke got close enough to damage one it 's safely distant from all of the others.Space is really , really big .
Mind-bogglingly big .
These satellites are very , very safe right where they are .
Not even James Bond could take out enough of them to be disruptive , but I 'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people with anti-sat missiles are the same people who are operating the GPS satellites (the USAF); and the Chinese.
(I suppose we can presume the Russians or Japanese could come up with something if they needed to, also.
)  And in both cases, the anti-sat missiles demonstrated were able to strike low earth orbit targets, in the range of a few hundred kilometers in altitude.
GPS satellites are in medium earth orbits, which at 20,000km are considerably further away than any anti-sat missile ever tested has struck.
Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown hasn't even reached orbit yet.Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy.
It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips, (taking out both GPS and LORAN-C receivers at the same time,) but at those distances even a big nuke would deliver little more energy to the satellites than a flashbulb.
The birds themselves are separated from each other by distances of over 30,000 km, so even if your nuke got close enough to damage one it's safely distant from all of the others.Space is really, really big.
Mind-bogglingly big.
These satellites are very, very safe right where they are.
Not even James Bond could take out enough of them to be disruptive, but I'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748954</id>
	<title>Re:200 Meters sounds pretty good compared to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263386940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 nanometre is pretty accurate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 nanometre is pretty accurate : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 nanometre is pretty accurate :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746748</id>
	<title>The end of an era</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1263314520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the end of an era I guess. This story throws me back to 1964, wandering the North Atlantic aboard HMSS Hudson, doing marine geophysical surveys.</p><p>When it came to positioning, we left nothing to chance; we had the requisite equipment (pre-computer), tables and charts for LORAN, DECCA, CONSOL and the brand-new, edge of the technical envelope, VLF. Sometimes we used a few of them together, with transparent overlays giving a very small polygon containing, somewhere within it, our little ship. We liked to brag that we could pin down our position within its length.</p><p>One of my favourite duties was radar watch and navigation, especially late at night, lights dimmed, phosphorous glow from both  the radar screen and the froth on the waves ahead. Transferring readings from the radios and charting our course made me an integral part of the process, acutely aware of the immensity of the ocean around us and challenged to keep us from losing our way. I can still smell the mixture of diesel, coffee and ammonia (from the weather fax machine) that permeated the bridge.</p><p>Now, with the retiring of LORAN, it's finally all gone, replaced by an LCD display your grandmother can use. Sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the end of an era I guess .
This story throws me back to 1964 , wandering the North Atlantic aboard HMSS Hudson , doing marine geophysical surveys.When it came to positioning , we left nothing to chance ; we had the requisite equipment ( pre-computer ) , tables and charts for LORAN , DECCA , CONSOL and the brand-new , edge of the technical envelope , VLF .
Sometimes we used a few of them together , with transparent overlays giving a very small polygon containing , somewhere within it , our little ship .
We liked to brag that we could pin down our position within its length.One of my favourite duties was radar watch and navigation , especially late at night , lights dimmed , phosphorous glow from both the radar screen and the froth on the waves ahead .
Transferring readings from the radios and charting our course made me an integral part of the process , acutely aware of the immensity of the ocean around us and challenged to keep us from losing our way .
I can still smell the mixture of diesel , coffee and ammonia ( from the weather fax machine ) that permeated the bridge.Now , with the retiring of LORAN , it 's finally all gone , replaced by an LCD display your grandmother can use .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the end of an era I guess.
This story throws me back to 1964, wandering the North Atlantic aboard HMSS Hudson, doing marine geophysical surveys.When it came to positioning, we left nothing to chance; we had the requisite equipment (pre-computer), tables and charts for LORAN, DECCA, CONSOL and the brand-new, edge of the technical envelope, VLF.
Sometimes we used a few of them together, with transparent overlays giving a very small polygon containing, somewhere within it, our little ship.
We liked to brag that we could pin down our position within its length.One of my favourite duties was radar watch and navigation, especially late at night, lights dimmed, phosphorous glow from both  the radar screen and the froth on the waves ahead.
Transferring readings from the radios and charting our course made me an integral part of the process, acutely aware of the immensity of the ocean around us and challenged to keep us from losing our way.
I can still smell the mixture of diesel, coffee and ammonia (from the weather fax machine) that permeated the bridge.Now, with the retiring of LORAN, it's finally all gone, replaced by an LCD display your grandmother can use.
Sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745886</id>
	<title>station tahoe pipeline will be gone</title>
	<author>fearanddread</author>
	<datestamp>1263307140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coasties all know that the way to get a sweet station assignment like Station Lake Tahoe is to spend a year in <a href="http://www.uscg.mil/d17/loranattu/" title="uscg.mil" rel="nofollow">attu</a> [uscg.mil].  I wonder what the new pipeline will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coasties all know that the way to get a sweet station assignment like Station Lake Tahoe is to spend a year in attu [ uscg.mil ] .
I wonder what the new pipeline will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coasties all know that the way to get a sweet station assignment like Station Lake Tahoe is to spend a year in attu [uscg.mil].
I wonder what the new pipeline will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748854</id>
	<title>Kinda Sad</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263385620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never used it on a boat but I went flying with another pilot once who had a LORAN unit installed in a Kitfox.  I didn't even know what it was at the time, but as he explained it, it was much cheaper to install than a VOR receiver.  We did a fair amount of flying in Florida navigating using that unit.</p><p>I know that with the prices of handheld GPS (for aviation, boating, and everything else) coming down a lot of such technologies may be shut off, but it still seems a bit sad to me. I love GPS and it certainly is easier to use, but I'd like to see some of the older technologies maintained at least as backups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never used it on a boat but I went flying with another pilot once who had a LORAN unit installed in a Kitfox .
I did n't even know what it was at the time , but as he explained it , it was much cheaper to install than a VOR receiver .
We did a fair amount of flying in Florida navigating using that unit.I know that with the prices of handheld GPS ( for aviation , boating , and everything else ) coming down a lot of such technologies may be shut off , but it still seems a bit sad to me .
I love GPS and it certainly is easier to use , but I 'd like to see some of the older technologies maintained at least as backups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never used it on a boat but I went flying with another pilot once who had a LORAN unit installed in a Kitfox.
I didn't even know what it was at the time, but as he explained it, it was much cheaper to install than a VOR receiver.
We did a fair amount of flying in Florida navigating using that unit.I know that with the prices of handheld GPS (for aviation, boating, and everything else) coming down a lot of such technologies may be shut off, but it still seems a bit sad to me.
I love GPS and it certainly is easier to use, but I'd like to see some of the older technologies maintained at least as backups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754186</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1263412560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inertial navigation is only useful if you have reference points.  Also, AHRS sensors aren't perfect, require calibration, and require some math (i.e. Kalman filtering) to be useful.</p><p>With the FAA's NextGen mission, NDBs and VORs could be things of the past.  As of right now, NDBs are getting shut down.  VORs are only really useful if you have a chart anyway and know which one you are tuned into.  DMEs are part of VORs and again are only useful if you have a chart and know which VOR/DME you are tuned into.  ADFs are only useful for those who have them, I don't know of any aircraft built in the last 10 years that include an ADF.  They are handy though, I used an ADF to listen to Cubs games, and could follow the needle to fly to Chicago.  ILS systems are expensive and of limited use.</p><p>Everything you mentioned, except for GPS and LORAN, requires the user to have their own reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inertial navigation is only useful if you have reference points .
Also , AHRS sensors are n't perfect , require calibration , and require some math ( i.e .
Kalman filtering ) to be useful.With the FAA 's NextGen mission , NDBs and VORs could be things of the past .
As of right now , NDBs are getting shut down .
VORs are only really useful if you have a chart anyway and know which one you are tuned into .
DMEs are part of VORs and again are only useful if you have a chart and know which VOR/DME you are tuned into .
ADFs are only useful for those who have them , I do n't know of any aircraft built in the last 10 years that include an ADF .
They are handy though , I used an ADF to listen to Cubs games , and could follow the needle to fly to Chicago .
ILS systems are expensive and of limited use.Everything you mentioned , except for GPS and LORAN , requires the user to have their own reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inertial navigation is only useful if you have reference points.
Also, AHRS sensors aren't perfect, require calibration, and require some math (i.e.
Kalman filtering) to be useful.With the FAA's NextGen mission, NDBs and VORs could be things of the past.
As of right now, NDBs are getting shut down.
VORs are only really useful if you have a chart anyway and know which one you are tuned into.
DMEs are part of VORs and again are only useful if you have a chart and know which VOR/DME you are tuned into.
ADFs are only useful for those who have them, I don't know of any aircraft built in the last 10 years that include an ADF.
They are handy though, I used an ADF to listen to Cubs games, and could follow the needle to fly to Chicago.
ILS systems are expensive and of limited use.Everything you mentioned, except for GPS and LORAN, requires the user to have their own reference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746016</id>
	<title>What about eLoran?</title>
	<author>imadork</author>
	<datestamp>1263308160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loran-C may be obsolete, but the enhanced eLoran does make for a good backup system to GPS. It's accurate to about 10 meters or so with modern receivers.
<br>No, Galileo and Glonass are not good backups to GPS, because they are also satellite-based and rely on the reception of weak microwave signals, just like GPS. Those signals can (and do) get jammed, and can even be spoofed under the right conditions. Differential GPS or other GPS augmentation systems aren't even backups at all, as they rely on the main GPS signals being present in order to operate. Loran-C and eLoran are land-based, long wave signals that are very hard to jam. It is most useful in places and under conditions where GPS has problems. And in spite of how popular GPS is, there are definitely areas where it has problems.
<br>The UK and other countries have committed to eLoran for the next 10 to 15 years, so it's not like Loran-based systems are totally going away. They see the benefit of having a truly redundant positioning system, why doesn't the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loran-C may be obsolete , but the enhanced eLoran does make for a good backup system to GPS .
It 's accurate to about 10 meters or so with modern receivers .
No , Galileo and Glonass are not good backups to GPS , because they are also satellite-based and rely on the reception of weak microwave signals , just like GPS .
Those signals can ( and do ) get jammed , and can even be spoofed under the right conditions .
Differential GPS or other GPS augmentation systems are n't even backups at all , as they rely on the main GPS signals being present in order to operate .
Loran-C and eLoran are land-based , long wave signals that are very hard to jam .
It is most useful in places and under conditions where GPS has problems .
And in spite of how popular GPS is , there are definitely areas where it has problems .
The UK and other countries have committed to eLoran for the next 10 to 15 years , so it 's not like Loran-based systems are totally going away .
They see the benefit of having a truly redundant positioning system , why does n't the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loran-C may be obsolete, but the enhanced eLoran does make for a good backup system to GPS.
It's accurate to about 10 meters or so with modern receivers.
No, Galileo and Glonass are not good backups to GPS, because they are also satellite-based and rely on the reception of weak microwave signals, just like GPS.
Those signals can (and do) get jammed, and can even be spoofed under the right conditions.
Differential GPS or other GPS augmentation systems aren't even backups at all, as they rely on the main GPS signals being present in order to operate.
Loran-C and eLoran are land-based, long wave signals that are very hard to jam.
It is most useful in places and under conditions where GPS has problems.
And in spite of how popular GPS is, there are definitely areas where it has problems.
The UK and other countries have committed to eLoran for the next 10 to 15 years, so it's not like Loran-based systems are totally going away.
They see the benefit of having a truly redundant positioning system, why doesn't the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747182</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1263318480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One thing to note about LORAN, vs GPS, however is: GPS is basically owned by the United States. The US government has full control over it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The U.S. has full control over the LORAN-C transmitters in the U.S. too. Hence their ability to shut them down.</p><blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, LORAN is an international system, used by many countries... Many countries, the US, Japan, Europe, use LORAN.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And those countries can continue to use LORAN within their own borders. The U.S. has no power to turn those off.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm sure the US government can't stand being part of an international system... they've got to turn off their receivers, to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems.</p></div> </blockquote><p>What I want to know is why the U.S. <i>didn't</i> shut off LORAN-C as soon as cheap GPS receivers were widely available. All military vessels had GPS receivers not long after the constellation was active. GPS is extremely reliable: You need a minimum of 4 satellites in view to get an accurate position (3 in a pinch) and with 31 satellites currently in service, there are usually at least 8 visible in the sky at any time. The (implicit) argument of LORAN-C as a necessary fallback is bogus.</p><blockquote><div><p>There can't be an alternative to GPS available, when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war...</p></div> </blockquote><p>In the private/commercial sector, LORAN-C was really only used for sea navigation. When's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C? Never, because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get. And as I already mentioned, the U.S. government certainly has as much capability of turning off LORAN-C transmitters as they do GPS signals.</p><p>Simply put, the U.S. will not ever voluntarily turn off GPS signals within U.S. borders. I highly doubt they would even re-enable SA. Too many consumer, commercial, medical, and scientific devices depend on the accuracy of GPS these days. We would have to be facing a full-on armed invasion which I doubt is something I'll ever see in my lifetime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to note about LORAN , vs GPS , however is : GPS is basically owned by the United States .
The US government has full control over it .
The U.S. has full control over the LORAN-C transmitters in the U.S. too. Hence their ability to shut them down.On the other hand , LORAN is an international system , used by many countries... Many countries , the US , Japan , Europe , use LORAN .
And those countries can continue to use LORAN within their own borders .
The U.S. has no power to turn those off.I 'm sure the US government ca n't stand being part of an international system... they 've got to turn off their receivers , to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems .
What I want to know is why the U.S. did n't shut off LORAN-C as soon as cheap GPS receivers were widely available .
All military vessels had GPS receivers not long after the constellation was active .
GPS is extremely reliable : You need a minimum of 4 satellites in view to get an accurate position ( 3 in a pinch ) and with 31 satellites currently in service , there are usually at least 8 visible in the sky at any time .
The ( implicit ) argument of LORAN-C as a necessary fallback is bogus.There ca n't be an alternative to GPS available , when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war... In the private/commercial sector , LORAN-C was really only used for sea navigation .
When 's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C ?
Never , because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get .
And as I already mentioned , the U.S. government certainly has as much capability of turning off LORAN-C transmitters as they do GPS signals.Simply put , the U.S. will not ever voluntarily turn off GPS signals within U.S. borders. I highly doubt they would even re-enable SA .
Too many consumer , commercial , medical , and scientific devices depend on the accuracy of GPS these days .
We would have to be facing a full-on armed invasion which I doubt is something I 'll ever see in my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to note about LORAN, vs GPS, however is: GPS is basically owned by the United States.
The US government has full control over it.
The U.S. has full control over the LORAN-C transmitters in the U.S. too. Hence their ability to shut them down.On the other hand, LORAN is an international system, used by many countries... Many countries, the US, Japan, Europe, use LORAN.
And those countries can continue to use LORAN within their own borders.
The U.S. has no power to turn those off.I'm sure the US government can't stand being part of an international system... they've got to turn off their receivers, to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems.
What I want to know is why the U.S. didn't shut off LORAN-C as soon as cheap GPS receivers were widely available.
All military vessels had GPS receivers not long after the constellation was active.
GPS is extremely reliable: You need a minimum of 4 satellites in view to get an accurate position (3 in a pinch) and with 31 satellites currently in service, there are usually at least 8 visible in the sky at any time.
The (implicit) argument of LORAN-C as a necessary fallback is bogus.There can't be an alternative to GPS available, when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war... In the private/commercial sector, LORAN-C was really only used for sea navigation.
When's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C?
Never, because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get.
And as I already mentioned, the U.S. government certainly has as much capability of turning off LORAN-C transmitters as they do GPS signals.Simply put, the U.S. will not ever voluntarily turn off GPS signals within U.S. borders. I highly doubt they would even re-enable SA.
Too many consumer, commercial, medical, and scientific devices depend on the accuracy of GPS these days.
We would have to be facing a full-on armed invasion which I doubt is something I'll ever see in my lifetime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746174</id>
	<title>What, it's still there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263309720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a sailor most of my life.  We haven't used Loran C seriously for almost two decades.  Most boats don't even have Loran receivers any more.  It's GPS all the way whether you are a casual sailor or a commercial ship captain.  In fact, large commercial ships are required to use GPS and special transceivers these days (the boater's equivalent of GPS-based aircraft systems).  If backup matters one could pack a RDF or maybe even a sextant, but frankly GPS has not failed even once from the day it became available to boaters.  Besides, Loran C pretty much only works near the coastline of major industrialized nations (or did)... it wouldn't be all that helpful if you were lost at sea.</p><p>The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a sailor most of my life .
We have n't used Loran C seriously for almost two decades .
Most boats do n't even have Loran receivers any more .
It 's GPS all the way whether you are a casual sailor or a commercial ship captain .
In fact , large commercial ships are required to use GPS and special transceivers these days ( the boater 's equivalent of GPS-based aircraft systems ) .
If backup matters one could pack a RDF or maybe even a sextant , but frankly GPS has not failed even once from the day it became available to boaters .
Besides , Loran C pretty much only works near the coastline of major industrialized nations ( or did ) ... it would n't be all that helpful if you were lost at sea.The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a sailor most of my life.
We haven't used Loran C seriously for almost two decades.
Most boats don't even have Loran receivers any more.
It's GPS all the way whether you are a casual sailor or a commercial ship captain.
In fact, large commercial ships are required to use GPS and special transceivers these days (the boater's equivalent of GPS-based aircraft systems).
If backup matters one could pack a RDF or maybe even a sextant, but frankly GPS has not failed even once from the day it became available to boaters.
Besides, Loran C pretty much only works near the coastline of major industrialized nations (or did)... it wouldn't be all that helpful if you were lost at sea.The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670</id>
	<title>Priorities!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we're talking about freaking LORAN-C??</p><p>Get some PRIORITIES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thousands , possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we 're talking about freaking LORAN-C ?
? Get some PRIORITIES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we're talking about freaking LORAN-C?
?Get some PRIORITIES!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746000</id>
	<title>Not A suprise</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1263308040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I visited Cape Race, NL which has both a LORAN-C station and a DGPS station. Looking at the two I don't blame the USCG for getting rid of LORAN-C, the LORAN-C has a nice &amp; large radio tower, as well as a giant room with huge motors spinning around, mainframes that look like they're from the 60s. And since it's so far up North, you have to heat the room in the winter and cool it in the summer. On the contrast, the DGPS site was a couple of racks in a trailer. and 4 6m-ish towers around it. The heating cooling costs are much less and most of the maintanance is just scraping the snow/ice off the towers when it snows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). Combine this wit the fact that no-one really uses LORAN-C anymore, it's not hard to see why</htmltext>
<tokenext>I visited Cape Race , NL which has both a LORAN-C station and a DGPS station .
Looking at the two I do n't blame the USCG for getting rid of LORAN-C , the LORAN-C has a nice &amp; large radio tower , as well as a giant room with huge motors spinning around , mainframes that look like they 're from the 60s .
And since it 's so far up North , you have to heat the room in the winter and cool it in the summer .
On the contrast , the DGPS site was a couple of racks in a trailer .
and 4 6m-ish towers around it .
The heating cooling costs are much less and most of the maintanance is just scraping the snow/ice off the towers when it snows : - ) .
Combine this wit the fact that no-one really uses LORAN-C anymore , it 's not hard to see why</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I visited Cape Race, NL which has both a LORAN-C station and a DGPS station.
Looking at the two I don't blame the USCG for getting rid of LORAN-C, the LORAN-C has a nice &amp; large radio tower, as well as a giant room with huge motors spinning around, mainframes that look like they're from the 60s.
And since it's so far up North, you have to heat the room in the winter and cool it in the summer.
On the contrast, the DGPS site was a couple of racks in a trailer.
and 4 6m-ish towers around it.
The heating cooling costs are much less and most of the maintanance is just scraping the snow/ice off the towers when it snows :-).
Combine this wit the fact that no-one really uses LORAN-C anymore, it's not hard to see why</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745684</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 doctor seuss?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 doctor seuss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 doctor seuss?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749632</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263393600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.laipac.com/gps\_tf50\_eng.htm</p><p>It's a GNSS receiver board that does GPS, GLONASS, and COMPASS (know as Beidou-2 which is a Chinese ran system)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.laipac.com/gps \ _tf50 \ _eng.htmIt 's a GNSS receiver board that does GPS , GLONASS , and COMPASS ( know as Beidou-2 which is a Chinese ran system )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.laipac.com/gps\_tf50\_eng.htmIt's a GNSS receiver board that does GPS, GLONASS, and COMPASS (know as Beidou-2 which is a Chinese ran system)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263312120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids? What if some crazy decides to use anti-sat missiles and take all of the GPS satellites out or as in COD MW2 detonates a nuke in space to disable all communications?? I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids ?
What if some crazy decides to use anti-sat missiles and take all of the GPS satellites out or as in COD MW2 detonates a nuke in space to disable all communications ? ?
I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids?
What if some crazy decides to use anti-sat missiles and take all of the GPS satellites out or as in COD MW2 detonates a nuke in space to disable all communications??
I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745836</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263306900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TLA WTF IMO, YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TLA WTF IMO , YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLA WTF IMO, YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748540</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263380400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7. Celestial navigation + dead reckoning, although nowhere near 200m it's great for Ocean passages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 .
Celestial navigation + dead reckoning , although nowhere near 200m it 's great for Ocean passages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7.
Celestial navigation + dead reckoning, although nowhere near 200m it's great for Ocean passages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749340</id>
	<title>even if they shut it down</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1263391260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they should at least keep it intact and in good working order and if they ever need it they can just start it back up with little or no effort. thats too much invested to just sell off as junk surplus equipment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they should at least keep it intact and in good working order and if they ever need it they can just start it back up with little or no effort .
thats too much invested to just sell off as junk surplus equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they should at least keep it intact and in good working order and if they ever need it they can just start it back up with little or no effort.
thats too much invested to just sell off as junk surplus equipment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747320</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1263319860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US doesn't like being part of an international system, then why keep a woefully obsolete, far less accurate system running into 2010?  It's like complaining that a new Dell doesn't offer built-in floppy drive.  One person's redundancy is another's dead weight.  There is still GLONASS running now, even in a weakened state it has to be better, and hopefully Galileo will be up soon enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US does n't like being part of an international system , then why keep a woefully obsolete , far less accurate system running into 2010 ?
It 's like complaining that a new Dell does n't offer built-in floppy drive .
One person 's redundancy is another 's dead weight .
There is still GLONASS running now , even in a weakened state it has to be better , and hopefully Galileo will be up soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US doesn't like being part of an international system, then why keep a woefully obsolete, far less accurate system running into 2010?
It's like complaining that a new Dell doesn't offer built-in floppy drive.
One person's redundancy is another's dead weight.
There is still GLONASS running now, even in a weakened state it has to be better, and hopefully Galileo will be up soon enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750918</id>
	<title>I'm reminded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reminded of the day the Navy announced they would no longer teach celestial navigation.  A major communication satellite (Galaxy IV) got knocked out within 24 hours of the announcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded of the day the Navy announced they would no longer teach celestial navigation .
A major communication satellite ( Galaxy IV ) got knocked out within 24 hours of the announcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded of the day the Navy announced they would no longer teach celestial navigation.
A major communication satellite (Galaxy IV) got knocked out within 24 hours of the announcement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745604</id>
	<title>Last time...</title>
	<author>RedBear</author>
	<datestamp>1263305520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I saw a LORAN-C device was on my family's sailboat that we used to motor-sail to Alaska from Washington through the Inside Passage. That was 1990. It wasn't much use even at the time. Radar and charts were much more helpful with navigation. I haven't even heard mention of the term LORAN-C for a very long time. I don't think most vessels have a LORAN-C receiver installed anymore. Maybe big ones, but not the hundreds of thousands of small to medium size vessels. Hard to justify keeping it running if nobody is using it. What's the benefit if almost nobody owns the necessary hardware anymore? Just playing Devil's Advocate. I'm sure it's still useful to somebody, somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I saw a LORAN-C device was on my family 's sailboat that we used to motor-sail to Alaska from Washington through the Inside Passage .
That was 1990 .
It was n't much use even at the time .
Radar and charts were much more helpful with navigation .
I have n't even heard mention of the term LORAN-C for a very long time .
I do n't think most vessels have a LORAN-C receiver installed anymore .
Maybe big ones , but not the hundreds of thousands of small to medium size vessels .
Hard to justify keeping it running if nobody is using it .
What 's the benefit if almost nobody owns the necessary hardware anymore ?
Just playing Devil 's Advocate .
I 'm sure it 's still useful to somebody , somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I saw a LORAN-C device was on my family's sailboat that we used to motor-sail to Alaska from Washington through the Inside Passage.
That was 1990.
It wasn't much use even at the time.
Radar and charts were much more helpful with navigation.
I haven't even heard mention of the term LORAN-C for a very long time.
I don't think most vessels have a LORAN-C receiver installed anymore.
Maybe big ones, but not the hundreds of thousands of small to medium size vessels.
Hard to justify keeping it running if nobody is using it.
What's the benefit if almost nobody owns the necessary hardware anymore?
Just playing Devil's Advocate.
I'm sure it's still useful to somebody, somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745880</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1263307140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the US implements selective availability of GPS, they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.</p></div></blockquote><p>Besides, GPS with S/A is accurate to 100m, still better than the figures given for LORAN-C.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US implements selective availability of GPS , they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.Besides , GPS with S/A is accurate to 100m , still better than the figures given for LORAN-C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US implements selective availability of GPS, they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.Besides, GPS with S/A is accurate to 100m, still better than the figures given for LORAN-C.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745786</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1263306540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far as I am aware, the error was pretty much the same for everyone in the same area. By which I mean that if you gave a position by Loran the coast guard could find you with excellent accuracy even if the absolute position was 200m off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far as I am aware , the error was pretty much the same for everyone in the same area .
By which I mean that if you gave a position by Loran the coast guard could find you with excellent accuracy even if the absolute position was 200m off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far as I am aware, the error was pretty much the same for everyone in the same area.
By which I mean that if you gave a position by Loran the coast guard could find you with excellent accuracy even if the absolute position was 200m off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747438</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>tyldis</author>
	<datestamp>1263321000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, even most satellites launched these days use GPS instead of doppler and ranging measurements. Not that they ever used LORAN-C, but it ought to demonstrate that nobody believes GPS will be gone any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , even most satellites launched these days use GPS instead of doppler and ranging measurements .
Not that they ever used LORAN-C , but it ought to demonstrate that nobody believes GPS will be gone any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, even most satellites launched these days use GPS instead of doppler and ranging measurements.
Not that they ever used LORAN-C, but it ought to demonstrate that nobody believes GPS will be gone any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748242</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C? Never, because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get.</p></div><p>Oh, really? <br>Most AM (MW, LW) pocket radios use ferrite antennas, which are, admittedly, directional (which is bad for time-difference location finder system), but receiver can have two of them perpendicular to each other to alleviate the problem. <br>I'd grant it to you that <b>transmitting</b> antennas for long wave LORAN-C have to be enormous, but it is not so for receivers. <br>I guess the real reason there are no hand-held LORAN-C receivers is because the necessary integration (for same usability level) wasn't available in pre-GPS era.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When 's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C ?
Never , because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get.Oh , really ?
Most AM ( MW , LW ) pocket radios use ferrite antennas , which are , admittedly , directional ( which is bad for time-difference location finder system ) , but receiver can have two of them perpendicular to each other to alleviate the problem .
I 'd grant it to you that transmitting antennas for long wave LORAN-C have to be enormous , but it is not so for receivers .
I guess the real reason there are no hand-held LORAN-C receivers is because the necessary integration ( for same usability level ) was n't available in pre-GPS era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When's the last time you saw a hiking gadget or car navigation unit that used LORAN-C?
Never, because the required antenna is enormous no matter how small the electronics get.Oh, really?
Most AM (MW, LW) pocket radios use ferrite antennas, which are, admittedly, directional (which is bad for time-difference location finder system), but receiver can have two of them perpendicular to each other to alleviate the problem.
I'd grant it to you that transmitting antennas for long wave LORAN-C have to be enormous, but it is not so for receivers.
I guess the real reason there are no hand-held LORAN-C receivers is because the necessary integration (for same usability level) wasn't available in pre-GPS era.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746048</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1263308400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um LORAN-C just sends a radio signal. It won't really stop another country from using it in their own country (unless you bomb theirs). Also for selective availability, DGPS is a pretty good work around for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um LORAN-C just sends a radio signal .
It wo n't really stop another country from using it in their own country ( unless you bomb theirs ) .
Also for selective availability , DGPS is a pretty good work around for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um LORAN-C just sends a radio signal.
It won't really stop another country from using it in their own country (unless you bomb theirs).
Also for selective availability, DGPS is a pretty good work around for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746102</id>
	<title>Get ready for network disruption.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1263308940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loran-C has been used for distributing TDM network clocking by at least one major long distance telephone carrier, before they all switched over to GPS.  I wonder if they got all the equipment converted (or switched to SONET or later non-TDM packet-based stuff)?</p><p>Some boxes referencing to Loran-C and some to GPS would work so well that the omission might not be noticed.  Until the Loran-C shuts down and the boxes start to lose sync.  The resulting frame slips would make little "clicks" in any legacy phone connections.  But data traffic could get hit big time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loran-C has been used for distributing TDM network clocking by at least one major long distance telephone carrier , before they all switched over to GPS .
I wonder if they got all the equipment converted ( or switched to SONET or later non-TDM packet-based stuff ) ? Some boxes referencing to Loran-C and some to GPS would work so well that the omission might not be noticed .
Until the Loran-C shuts down and the boxes start to lose sync .
The resulting frame slips would make little " clicks " in any legacy phone connections .
But data traffic could get hit big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loran-C has been used for distributing TDM network clocking by at least one major long distance telephone carrier, before they all switched over to GPS.
I wonder if they got all the equipment converted (or switched to SONET or later non-TDM packet-based stuff)?Some boxes referencing to Loran-C and some to GPS would work so well that the omission might not be noticed.
Until the Loran-C shuts down and the boxes start to lose sync.
The resulting frame slips would make little "clicks" in any legacy phone connections.
But data traffic could get hit big time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746378</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1263311280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship.</i></p><p>Suppose that someone shoots down enough GPS satellites to disable the GPS system.  What then?  I'm in favor of some sort of backup system.</p><p>It's difficult to shoot down satellites, but <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html" title="washingtonpost.com">not impossible</a> [washingtonpost.com].</p><p>That said, I have to assume that ships could still navigate the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial\_navigation" title="wikipedia.org">old-fashioned way</a> [wikipedia.org], with an sextant, a chronometer, and some charts.  You can automate the calculations, so you just take the readings with the sextant and put the numbers in to a computer program.  It is even possible to automate the whole process, although nobody seems to bother anymore in these days of GPS.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship.Suppose that someone shoots down enough GPS satellites to disable the GPS system .
What then ?
I 'm in favor of some sort of backup system.It 's difficult to shoot down satellites , but not impossible [ washingtonpost.com ] .That said , I have to assume that ships could still navigate the old-fashioned way [ wikipedia.org ] , with an sextant , a chronometer , and some charts .
You can automate the calculations , so you just take the readings with the sextant and put the numbers in to a computer program .
It is even possible to automate the whole process , although nobody seems to bother anymore in these days of GPS.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship.Suppose that someone shoots down enough GPS satellites to disable the GPS system.
What then?
I'm in favor of some sort of backup system.It's difficult to shoot down satellites, but not impossible [washingtonpost.com].That said, I have to assume that ships could still navigate the old-fashioned way [wikipedia.org], with an sextant, a chronometer, and some charts.
You can automate the calculations, so you just take the readings with the sextant and put the numbers in to a computer program.
It is even possible to automate the whole process, although nobody seems to bother anymore in these days of GPS.steveha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30751996</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7. Cell phone tower trilateralization (sp?). <i>i. e.,</i> using the non-GPS location services that various carriers offer. Obviously no good in the deep ocean, but last dive trip I was on, the crew were making cell calls left and right and you could see the tower on land from the boat. Might as well have been a lighthouse.</p><p>Ironically, however, the guaranteed position precision is only about 1km for cell trilateration. Not as good as Loran's 200m.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 .
Cell phone tower trilateralization ( sp ? ) .
i. e. , using the non-GPS location services that various carriers offer .
Obviously no good in the deep ocean , but last dive trip I was on , the crew were making cell calls left and right and you could see the tower on land from the boat .
Might as well have been a lighthouse.Ironically , however , the guaranteed position precision is only about 1km for cell trilateration .
Not as good as Loran 's 200m .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7.
Cell phone tower trilateralization (sp?).
i. e., using the non-GPS location services that various carriers offer.
Obviously no good in the deep ocean, but last dive trip I was on, the crew were making cell calls left and right and you could see the tower on land from the boat.
Might as well have been a lighthouse.Ironically, however, the guaranteed position precision is only about 1km for cell trilateration.
Not as good as Loran's 200m.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746354</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities!!</title>
	<author>Le Marteau</author>
	<datestamp>1263311100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, exactly, are we supposed to say about Haiti?  Would that not be about a 10 post thread?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , exactly , are we supposed to say about Haiti ?
Would that not be about a 10 post thread ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, exactly, are we supposed to say about Haiti?
Would that not be about a 10 post thread?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747918</id>
	<title>Re:Kill LORAN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And by strike first i mean reroute all ships to one harbor creating worldwide shortage of everithing and... sorry, going back to work now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And by strike first i mean reroute all ships to one harbor creating worldwide shortage of everithing and... sorry , going back to work now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by strike first i mean reroute all ships to one harbor creating worldwide shortage of everithing and... sorry, going back to work now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753744</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>backwardMechanic</author>
	<datestamp>1263410820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember seeing a derelict Loran-C station in Iceland. I was very excited to see it, but I don't think anyone else in my group had a clue what it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember seeing a derelict Loran-C station in Iceland .
I was very excited to see it , but I do n't think anyone else in my group had a clue what it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember seeing a derelict Loran-C station in Iceland.
I was very excited to see it, but I don't think anyone else in my group had a clue what it was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747190</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1263318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would think that the line of sight principle and limits of VHF range both would make VOR completely impractical for navigation at sea. You'd have to dot the ocean with VOR platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that the line of sight principle and limits of VHF range both would make VOR completely impractical for navigation at sea .
You 'd have to dot the ocean with VOR platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that the line of sight principle and limits of VHF range both would make VOR completely impractical for navigation at sea.
You'd have to dot the ocean with VOR platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748852</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263385620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After some initial hissing on both sides, the US and EU have worked it out so they'll be compatible, and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems.</p></div><p>This seems to be a bit misleading, as it suggests a two-way deal. The hissing was mostly on the US side, and "working out" meant the EU did what the US ordered them to do. There were no concessions whatsoever from the US side.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison. As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating. The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008, however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.</p></div><p>One of the main reasons was that the EU first tried to organize this as a private public partnership, involving industries in financing the project- but private got cold feet in view of insufficient ROI.</p><p>Also, the number of satellites is a fairly coarse indicator for project progress. Tests with the GIOVE satellites were largely successfull (GIOVE-B is currently in orbit and functional btw), and what follows now is "mass-production" (the contracts are awarded to OHB, a german space company) and "mass-launch".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems</p></div><p>Not at all, the Russians have a near-global system of their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After some initial hissing on both sides , the US and EU have worked it out so they 'll be compatible , and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems.This seems to be a bit misleading , as it suggests a two-way deal .
The hissing was mostly on the US side , and " working out " meant the EU did what the US ordered them to do .
There were no concessions whatsoever from the US side.Unfortunately , Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison .
As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating .
The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008 , however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.One of the main reasons was that the EU first tried to organize this as a private public partnership , involving industries in financing the project- but private got cold feet in view of insufficient ROI.Also , the number of satellites is a fairly coarse indicator for project progress .
Tests with the GIOVE satellites were largely successfull ( GIOVE-B is currently in orbit and functional btw ) , and what follows now is " mass-production " ( the contracts are awarded to OHB , a german space company ) and " mass-launch " .Thus as it stands , the US still does have complete control over GNSS systemsNot at all , the Russians have a near-global system of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After some initial hissing on both sides, the US and EU have worked it out so they'll be compatible, and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems.This seems to be a bit misleading, as it suggests a two-way deal.
The hissing was mostly on the US side, and "working out" meant the EU did what the US ordered them to do.
There were no concessions whatsoever from the US side.Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison.
As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating.
The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008, however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.One of the main reasons was that the EU first tried to organize this as a private public partnership, involving industries in financing the project- but private got cold feet in view of insufficient ROI.Also, the number of satellites is a fairly coarse indicator for project progress.
Tests with the GIOVE satellites were largely successfull (GIOVE-B is currently in orbit and functional btw), and what follows now is "mass-production" (the contracts are awarded to OHB, a german space company) and "mass-launch".Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systemsNot at all, the Russians have a near-global system of their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749228</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263390180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can the EU version be redundant?  Won't it be in metric?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can the EU version be redundant ?
Wo n't it be in metric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can the EU version be redundant?
Won't it be in metric?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745860</id>
	<title>Satellite versus groundstation</title>
	<author>sabre86</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My main worry about this that the GPS system has a particular set of vulnerabilities that either don't exist or are less significant for a terrestrial system. Solar flares and other space environment risks come to mine, as does capture via hacking and attack via interceptor satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My main worry about this that the GPS system has a particular set of vulnerabilities that either do n't exist or are less significant for a terrestrial system .
Solar flares and other space environment risks come to mine , as does capture via hacking and attack via interceptor satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main worry about this that the GPS system has a particular set of vulnerabilities that either don't exist or are less significant for a terrestrial system.
Solar flares and other space environment risks come to mine, as does capture via hacking and attack via interceptor satellites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</id>
	<title>Idiotic.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1263304920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them. So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore? Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship? The reason to keep both was for functional redundancy in case one would in fact go offline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail , and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them , or repairing them .
So what happens when GPS does n't work anymore ?
Further , what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship ?
The reason to keep both was for functional redundancy in case one would in fact go offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them.
So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore?
Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?
The reason to keep both was for functional redundancy in case one would in fact go offline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746014</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263308160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Galileo</p></div><p>There are no operational Galileo satellites in orbit yet.</p><p>(not that it makes any of your other points less valid, just a factual correction)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GalileoThere are no operational Galileo satellites in orbit yet .
( not that it makes any of your other points less valid , just a factual correction )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GalileoThere are no operational Galileo satellites in orbit yet.
(not that it makes any of your other points less valid, just a factual correction)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747440</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1263321000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, if you have some free time, consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $$.</p> </div><p>Better to ask them why we operate two navies, 1 and a half armies, and 2 3/4 air forces. Our military organization has gotten to its current state through idiotic "fiefdom building" rather than an actual analysis of what we need to conduct military operations efficiently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if you have some free time , consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $ $ .
Better to ask them why we operate two navies , 1 and a half armies , and 2 3/4 air forces .
Our military organization has gotten to its current state through idiotic " fiefdom building " rather than an actual analysis of what we need to conduct military operations efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if you have some free time, consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $$.
Better to ask them why we operate two navies, 1 and a half armies, and 2 3/4 air forces.
Our military organization has gotten to its current state through idiotic "fiefdom building" rather than an actual analysis of what we need to conduct military operations efficiently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754646</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite versus groundstation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a coastie, this is old news, but as far as vulnerability goes, you are mighty mistaken imo.</p><p>Look up Attu Station, Alaska. I have a friend who was stationed there for a year. Maybe 15 people on the island, which is the only american soil invaded by japanese forces during wwII. (Pearl Harbor aside)</p><p>Weird, a Loran-C station...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a coastie , this is old news , but as far as vulnerability goes , you are mighty mistaken imo.Look up Attu Station , Alaska .
I have a friend who was stationed there for a year .
Maybe 15 people on the island , which is the only american soil invaded by japanese forces during wwII .
( Pearl Harbor aside ) Weird , a Loran-C station.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a coastie, this is old news, but as far as vulnerability goes, you are mighty mistaken imo.Look up Attu Station, Alaska.
I have a friend who was stationed there for a year.
Maybe 15 people on the island, which is the only american soil invaded by japanese forces during wwII.
(Pearl Harbor aside)Weird, a Loran-C station...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745780</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's mostly useful for shipping and boating making it an unlikely target for terrorism and not very useful for foreign militaries for say bomb guidance. The level of accuracy is adequate for shipping. Once they are in sight of a port it tends to be more by sight than instruments. What it really means is were will be totally dependent on GPS from here on out. What if several satellites went out? It would be a disaster. People think of GPS for satellite navigation for cars but everything from ships and planes to trucks depend on it. In a sense our whole economy is centered around it since transportation is dependent on GPS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mostly useful for shipping and boating making it an unlikely target for terrorism and not very useful for foreign militaries for say bomb guidance .
The level of accuracy is adequate for shipping .
Once they are in sight of a port it tends to be more by sight than instruments .
What it really means is were will be totally dependent on GPS from here on out .
What if several satellites went out ?
It would be a disaster .
People think of GPS for satellite navigation for cars but everything from ships and planes to trucks depend on it .
In a sense our whole economy is centered around it since transportation is dependent on GPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mostly useful for shipping and boating making it an unlikely target for terrorism and not very useful for foreign militaries for say bomb guidance.
The level of accuracy is adequate for shipping.
Once they are in sight of a port it tends to be more by sight than instruments.
What it really means is were will be totally dependent on GPS from here on out.
What if several satellites went out?
It would be a disaster.
People think of GPS for satellite navigation for cars but everything from ships and planes to trucks depend on it.
In a sense our whole economy is centered around it since transportation is dependent on GPS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746750</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>NormalVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1263314520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's difficult to shoot down satellites, but not impossible [washingtonpost.com].</i> <br> <br>

Note that was a satellite in low-Earth orbit.  It's a *lot* harder to shoot down something in geosynchronous orbit like a GPS satellite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's difficult to shoot down satellites , but not impossible [ washingtonpost.com ] .
Note that was a satellite in low-Earth orbit .
It 's a * lot * harder to shoot down something in geosynchronous orbit like a GPS satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's difficult to shoot down satellites, but not impossible [washingtonpost.com].
Note that was a satellite in low-Earth orbit.
It's a *lot* harder to shoot down something in geosynchronous orbit like a GPS satellite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746596</id>
	<title>200 Meters sounds pretty good compared to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loran A that I was using around 1970. In mid-Atlantic you couldn't get signals during the day and accuracy was around 1 nm, but it certainly was nice to have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loran A that I was using around 1970 .
In mid-Atlantic you could n't get signals during the day and accuracy was around 1 nm , but it certainly was nice to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loran A that I was using around 1970.
In mid-Atlantic you couldn't get signals during the day and accuracy was around 1 nm, but it certainly was nice to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745612</id>
	<title>Backup?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How in the world does this qualify as a backup for GPS?</p><p>For one, any sudden and immediate loss of GPS would probably impair LORAN as well, at least to some extent, unless its a failure of the GPS equipment on the boat.  For two, what happened to Mark 1 Eyeball, ye ol map, sextant, etc...?  Depending on electronic system #2 to backup electronic system #1 has a lot of problems when you're talking about something as essential as shipboard navigation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the world does this qualify as a backup for GPS ? For one , any sudden and immediate loss of GPS would probably impair LORAN as well , at least to some extent , unless its a failure of the GPS equipment on the boat .
For two , what happened to Mark 1 Eyeball , ye ol map , sextant , etc... ?
Depending on electronic system # 2 to backup electronic system # 1 has a lot of problems when you 're talking about something as essential as shipboard navigation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in the world does this qualify as a backup for GPS?For one, any sudden and immediate loss of GPS would probably impair LORAN as well, at least to some extent, unless its a failure of the GPS equipment on the boat.
For two, what happened to Mark 1 Eyeball, ye ol map, sextant, etc...?
Depending on electronic system #2 to backup electronic system #1 has a lot of problems when you're talking about something as essential as shipboard navigation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746124</id>
	<title>uhm, yeah, really idotic... NOT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263309240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like loran-C vs GPS, maybe you should keep dial-up ISP in case your broadband internet begins to fail?<br>Yeah, thought so, you don't have a dial-up ISP anymore do you?</p><p>GPS is a system, not a single thing.  The USAF (the ones that have the responsibility to modernize them) has invested in system wide redundancy (right now 31 satellites are active, even though only 24 are required).  Why didn't they deorbit the extra satellites, it was for functional redundancy of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p><p>What if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, perhaps they should turn on their backup GPS receiver (instead of being forced to buy an additional eLORAN receiver as a backup).  Just like how you might not remember the dial-up backup number your ISP gave you, operators on the ship might not remember the how to operate the ancient LORAN-C reciever.</p><p>At some point in time something becomes more trouble than it's worth and that is LORAN-C, new applications can't use the old mechanism (e.g., streaming video through dialup, 200m vs 10m accuracy), and the "backup" just isn't really a backup anymore, it's just a relic...</p><p>Just posting anon so my karma doesn't get trounced by responding to a troll...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like loran-C vs GPS , maybe you should keep dial-up ISP in case your broadband internet begins to fail ? Yeah , thought so , you do n't have a dial-up ISP anymore do you ? GPS is a system , not a single thing .
The USAF ( the ones that have the responsibility to modernize them ) has invested in system wide redundancy ( right now 31 satellites are active , even though only 24 are required ) .
Why did n't they deorbit the extra satellites , it was for functional redundancy of course .
; ^ ) What if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship , perhaps they should turn on their backup GPS receiver ( instead of being forced to buy an additional eLORAN receiver as a backup ) .
Just like how you might not remember the dial-up backup number your ISP gave you , operators on the ship might not remember the how to operate the ancient LORAN-C reciever.At some point in time something becomes more trouble than it 's worth and that is LORAN-C , new applications ca n't use the old mechanism ( e.g. , streaming video through dialup , 200m vs 10m accuracy ) , and the " backup " just is n't really a backup anymore , it 's just a relic...Just posting anon so my karma does n't get trounced by responding to a troll.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like loran-C vs GPS, maybe you should keep dial-up ISP in case your broadband internet begins to fail?Yeah, thought so, you don't have a dial-up ISP anymore do you?GPS is a system, not a single thing.
The USAF (the ones that have the responsibility to modernize them) has invested in system wide redundancy (right now 31 satellites are active, even though only 24 are required).
Why didn't they deorbit the extra satellites, it was for functional redundancy of course.
;^)What if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, perhaps they should turn on their backup GPS receiver (instead of being forced to buy an additional eLORAN receiver as a backup).
Just like how you might not remember the dial-up backup number your ISP gave you, operators on the ship might not remember the how to operate the ancient LORAN-C reciever.At some point in time something becomes more trouble than it's worth and that is LORAN-C, new applications can't use the old mechanism (e.g., streaming video through dialup, 200m vs 10m accuracy), and the "backup" just isn't really a backup anymore, it's just a relic...Just posting anon so my karma doesn't get trounced by responding to a troll...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745810</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Russians and the Chinese have systems too - I don't know how usable they are by the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Russians and the Chinese have systems too - I do n't know how usable they are by the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Russians and the Chinese have systems too - I don't know how usable they are by the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747614</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the US participates in Loran transmitter chains with Canada and Russia.  Those are not being turned off due to international treaties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the US participates in Loran transmitter chains with Canada and Russia .
Those are not being turned off due to international treaties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the US participates in Loran transmitter chains with Canada and Russia.
Those are not being turned off due to international treaties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746192</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263309840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas</p><p>-I'm just sayin'</p></div><p>Are you going to pick yourself up by your pants and fly through a gap in the clouds?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas-I 'm just sayin'Are you going to pick yourself up by your pants and fly through a gap in the clouds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas-I'm just sayin'Are you going to pick yourself up by your pants and fly through a gap in the clouds?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745716</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1263306120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them.</i> <p>
Except the US.</p><p>
<i>So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore?</i> </p><p>
Given the military use of GPS, that's unlikely.</p><p>
<i>Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship? </i> </p><p>
If A GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, you turn on any of the leventy-dozen other GPS receivers on board, including the handheld you bought for a hundred dollars that outperforms the models available just five years ago.</p><p>
You simply can't get the handheld performance from LORAN that you can from GPS, and it is no big loss for the US LORAN chains to be turned off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail , and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them , or repairing them .
Except the US .
So what happens when GPS does n't work anymore ?
Given the military use of GPS , that 's unlikely .
Further , what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship ?
If A GPS receiver goes offline on a ship , you turn on any of the leventy-dozen other GPS receivers on board , including the handheld you bought for a hundred dollars that outperforms the models available just five years ago .
You simply ca n't get the handheld performance from LORAN that you can from GPS , and it is no big loss for the US LORAN chains to be turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them.
Except the US.
So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore?
Given the military use of GPS, that's unlikely.
Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?
If A GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, you turn on any of the leventy-dozen other GPS receivers on board, including the handheld you bought for a hundred dollars that outperforms the models available just five years ago.
You simply can't get the handheld performance from LORAN that you can from GPS, and it is no big loss for the US LORAN chains to be turned off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745908</id>
	<title>$160M over 10 years?</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1263307320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$16M/year is nothing to the government, they've just been keeping it on life support for 10 years. Even if SA is turned back on, GPS will be accurate enough for commercial navigation and the system proven reliable enough. Let LORAN-C pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 16M/year is nothing to the government , they 've just been keeping it on life support for 10 years .
Even if SA is turned back on , GPS will be accurate enough for commercial navigation and the system proven reliable enough .
Let LORAN-C pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$16M/year is nothing to the government, they've just been keeping it on life support for 10 years.
Even if SA is turned back on, GPS will be accurate enough for commercial navigation and the system proven reliable enough.
Let LORAN-C pass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1263304140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It has an approximately 200m accuracy</i>
<br>
<br>
Wow, I didn't know it was that inaccurate.<br>
<br>
<i>and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.</i>
<br>
<br>
If the US implements selective availability of GPS, they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has an approximately 200m accuracy Wow , I did n't know it was that inaccurate .
and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war .
If the US implements selective availability of GPS , they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has an approximately 200m accuracy


Wow, I didn't know it was that inaccurate.
and is a functional replacement in case GPS fails or the US implements selective availability in time of war.
If the US implements selective availability of GPS, they can certainly also just turn off Loran-C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748918</id>
	<title>We have a sailboat</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1263386520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPS is nice. Loran is a wonderderful back up. But you just can't beat a sextant and a nautical almanac, either. Just like it's a good idea to learn to add before using a calculator, it's a good idea to have some sort of low tech back up for navigation. You never know when your generator will die, and the batteries in your GPS will leak that same day, leaving you stranded.</p><p>If you do any real savings, a sextant (and knowing how to use it!) is a must.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS is nice .
Loran is a wonderderful back up .
But you just ca n't beat a sextant and a nautical almanac , either .
Just like it 's a good idea to learn to add before using a calculator , it 's a good idea to have some sort of low tech back up for navigation .
You never know when your generator will die , and the batteries in your GPS will leak that same day , leaving you stranded.If you do any real savings , a sextant ( and knowing how to use it !
) is a must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS is nice.
Loran is a wonderderful back up.
But you just can't beat a sextant and a nautical almanac, either.
Just like it's a good idea to learn to add before using a calculator, it's a good idea to have some sort of low tech back up for navigation.
You never know when your generator will die, and the batteries in your GPS will leak that same day, leaving you stranded.If you do any real savings, a sextant (and knowing how to use it!
) is a must.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745750</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>ivan\_w</author>
	<datestamp>1263306300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[[citation needed]] - GPS sats are failing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ [ citation needed ] ] - GPS sats are failing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[[citation needed]] - GPS sats are failing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748608</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263381360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meteor showers/coronal activity FTW!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meteor showers/coronal activity FTW !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meteor showers/coronal activity FTW!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746424</id>
	<title>Re:Sunk cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263311640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.</p></div><p>Econ 101: don't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs.</p></div><p>Business 101 - Boss will shoot new guy who walks in saying "You know that $160 million you've spent?  Throw it out, it's garbage."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in spite of $ 160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.Econ 101 : do n't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs.Business 101 - Boss will shoot new guy who walks in saying " You know that $ 160 million you 've spent ?
Throw it out , it 's garbage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.Econ 101: don't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs.Business 101 - Boss will shoot new guy who walks in saying "You know that $160 million you've spent?
Throw it out, it's garbage.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750602</id>
	<title>Some stations are staying online.</title>
	<author>harrytuttle777</author>
	<datestamp>1263398520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all the stations are going offline immediately.  The station in Attu will stay online for another 5 months I believe, because they act as secondary chains to the ones in Russia.



It is interesting that Russia is keeping their chain online, whereas we are giving up ours.  I guess it is just a sign that our empire is in decline.

This brings up an interesting question. What happens when we do abandon Attu.  Right now there are only 20 people on the whole island. Attu is way outside of TTW.  The mineral rights alone might be worth fighting over.  I hereby offer my services to the united states to homestead, and create a permanent U.S. presence on the island. Ahh.  I come cheap, and do not need all the supplies and logistics that the current Coasties are needing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all the stations are going offline immediately .
The station in Attu will stay online for another 5 months I believe , because they act as secondary chains to the ones in Russia .
It is interesting that Russia is keeping their chain online , whereas we are giving up ours .
I guess it is just a sign that our empire is in decline .
This brings up an interesting question .
What happens when we do abandon Attu .
Right now there are only 20 people on the whole island .
Attu is way outside of TTW .
The mineral rights alone might be worth fighting over .
I hereby offer my services to the united states to homestead , and create a permanent U.S. presence on the island .
Ahh. I come cheap , and do not need all the supplies and logistics that the current Coasties are needing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all the stations are going offline immediately.
The station in Attu will stay online for another 5 months I believe, because they act as secondary chains to the ones in Russia.
It is interesting that Russia is keeping their chain online, whereas we are giving up ours.
I guess it is just a sign that our empire is in decline.
This brings up an interesting question.
What happens when we do abandon Attu.
Right now there are only 20 people on the whole island.
Attu is way outside of TTW.
The mineral rights alone might be worth fighting over.
I hereby offer my services to the united states to homestead, and create a permanent U.S. presence on the island.
Ahh.  I come cheap, and do not need all the supplies and logistics that the current Coasties are needing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747846</id>
	<title>What happened to eLORAN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263326280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to eLORAN?  [http://www.loran.org/ILAArchive/eLoran\%20Definition\%20Document/eLoran\%20Definition\%20Document-1.0.pdf]</p><p>I thought GPS systems were prone to jamming, sunspots, etc and LORAN would provide a backup.  [http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/wide-awake/wide-awake-with-no-back-9168]  LORAN, unlike GPS, has high power transmitters and low frequency allocations which made jamming less likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to eLORAN ?
[ http : //www.loran.org/ILAArchive/eLoran \ % 20Definition \ % 20Document/eLoran \ % 20Definition \ % 20Document-1.0.pdf ] I thought GPS systems were prone to jamming , sunspots , etc and LORAN would provide a backup .
[ http : //www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/wide-awake/wide-awake-with-no-back-9168 ] LORAN , unlike GPS , has high power transmitters and low frequency allocations which made jamming less likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to eLORAN?
[http://www.loran.org/ILAArchive/eLoran\%20Definition\%20Document/eLoran\%20Definition\%20Document-1.0.pdf]I thought GPS systems were prone to jamming, sunspots, etc and LORAN would provide a backup.
[http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/wide-awake/wide-awake-with-no-back-9168]  LORAN, unlike GPS, has high power transmitters and low frequency allocations which made jamming less likely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747472</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1263321240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids?</i></p><p>No, it seems stupid to spend millions of dollars on a service that very few people are using anymore.</p><p><i> I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens...</i></p><p>Anyone who sails out of sight of land without knowing how to use a sextant is a damned fool.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids ? No , it seems stupid to spend millions of dollars on a service that very few people are using anymore .
I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens...Anyone who sails out of sight of land without knowing how to use a sextant is a damned fool.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it seem stupid to anyone else to disable all of the lower-tec nav aids?No, it seems stupid to spend millions of dollars on a service that very few people are using anymore.
I guess we can just go back to using sextants if that happens...Anyone who sails out of sight of land without knowing how to use a sextant is a damned fool.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745846</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic. You got that part right at least.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also, recievers are not cheap. many ships, especially smaller privately held ones, DO only have a SINGLE reciever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also , recievers are not cheap .
many ships , especially smaller privately held ones , DO only have a SINGLE reciever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, recievers are not cheap.
many ships, especially smaller privately held ones, DO only have a SINGLE reciever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30760906</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1263404760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The points you brought up have no bearing on the fact that three independent operators would have to agree to shut down their respective systems in order to deny GNSS access worldwide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The points you brought up have no bearing on the fact that three independent operators would have to agree to shut down their respective systems in order to deny GNSS access worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The points you brought up have no bearing on the fact that three independent operators would have to agree to shut down their respective systems in order to deny GNSS access worldwide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else see the irony? in using LORAN <em>US implements selective availability</em>, when LORAN is only accurate to 200m ?</p><p>
<b>Selective availability</b> was a (currently disabled) feature of GPS that adds intentional errors up to 100 meters / 328.08 ft  to publicly
available GPS signal...
</p><p>
Before SA was turned off in 2000 the typical SA errors were 32ft horizontal, 98ft vertical.
</p><p>
SA is easily defeated using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential\_GPS" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Differential GPS</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p><p>
One thing to note about LORAN, vs GPS, however is:
GPS  is basically <b>owned by the United States</b>.
The US government has full control over it.
</p><p>
On the other hand, LORAN is an international system, used by many countries...  Many countries, the US, Japan, Europe, use LORAN.
</p><p>
I'm sure the US government can't stand being part of an international system...
they've got to turn off their receivers, to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems.
</p><p>
There <b>can't</b> be an alternative to GPS available, when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else see the irony ?
in using LORAN US implements selective availability , when LORAN is only accurate to 200m ?
Selective availability was a ( currently disabled ) feature of GPS that adds intentional errors up to 100 meters / 328.08 ft to publicly available GPS signal.. . Before SA was turned off in 2000 the typical SA errors were 32ft horizontal , 98ft vertical .
SA is easily defeated using Differential GPS [ wikipedia.org ] .
One thing to note about LORAN , vs GPS , however is : GPS is basically owned by the United States .
The US government has full control over it .
On the other hand , LORAN is an international system , used by many countries... Many countries , the US , Japan , Europe , use LORAN .
I 'm sure the US government ca n't stand being part of an international system.. . they 've got to turn off their receivers , to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems .
There ca n't be an alternative to GPS available , when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else see the irony?
in using LORAN US implements selective availability, when LORAN is only accurate to 200m ?
Selective availability was a (currently disabled) feature of GPS that adds intentional errors up to 100 meters / 328.08 ft  to publicly
available GPS signal...

Before SA was turned off in 2000 the typical SA errors were 32ft horizontal, 98ft vertical.
SA is easily defeated using Differential GPS [wikipedia.org].
One thing to note about LORAN, vs GPS, however is:
GPS  is basically owned by the United States.
The US government has full control over it.
On the other hand, LORAN is an international system, used by many countries...  Many countries, the US, Japan, Europe, use LORAN.
I'm sure the US government can't stand being part of an international system...
they've got to turn off their receivers, to tighten their stranglehold on navigation control systems.
There can't be an alternative to GPS available, when the US needs to switch it off or block the signal over/around certain areasw in an emergency or time of war...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746656</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>fdrebin</author>
	<datestamp>1263313860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slightly OT:<p>
My mother was one of the people rescued by the CG in the 1937 floods referenced in the CG article. You can be sure that *I* am glad that she was... I sure wouldn't be here if she hadn't been rescued.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/F</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly OT : My mother was one of the people rescued by the CG in the 1937 floods referenced in the CG article .
You can be sure that * I * am glad that she was... I sure would n't be here if she had n't been rescued .
/F</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly OT:
My mother was one of the people rescued by the CG in the 1937 floods referenced in the CG article.
You can be sure that *I* am glad that she was... I sure wouldn't be here if she hadn't been rescued.
/F</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746058</id>
	<title>Lexx?</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1263308460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't Kai the last of the LORAN-C?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Kai the last of the LORAN-C ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Kai the last of the LORAN-C?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745906</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point.  With LORAN being shut down and the US government desperate for quick cash, there may finally be some surplus cesium-beam standards for sale on eBay that aren't completely dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
With LORAN being shut down and the US government desperate for quick cash , there may finally be some surplus cesium-beam standards for sale on eBay that are n't completely dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
With LORAN being shut down and the US government desperate for quick cash, there may finally be some surplus cesium-beam standards for sale on eBay that aren't completely dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745934</id>
	<title>RE:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are ignorant GPS, LAAS WAAS and DGPS *are* GPS (Milstar) - it fails - they fail - [X-class solar flare - done - many others (ref needed but I'm too p**sed)]<br>Galileo - the *zen* PNT system - wait for it - they can't even get the orbital ephemeris figured out<br>GLONASS - ok - thanks to the Indians<br>Baidu - Ha - for now<br>Inertial - no intrinsic place reference - NO time reference<br>Visual - ever hear of IFR?<br>VOR, DME, etc - you *really* haven't been paying attention - funding, maintenance, certs, and so forth.<br>6. - WTF? OK we just us sailing ships - that worked out well - and should work *forever*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are ignorant GPS , LAAS WAAS and DGPS * are * GPS ( Milstar ) - it fails - they fail - [ X-class solar flare - done - many others ( ref needed but I 'm too p * * sed ) ] Galileo - the * zen * PNT system - wait for it - they ca n't even get the orbital ephemeris figured outGLONASS - ok - thanks to the IndiansBaidu - Ha - for nowInertial - no intrinsic place reference - NO time referenceVisual - ever hear of IFR ? VOR , DME , etc - you * really * have n't been paying attention - funding , maintenance , certs , and so forth.6 .
- WTF ?
OK we just us sailing ships - that worked out well - and should work * forever * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are ignorant GPS, LAAS WAAS and DGPS *are* GPS (Milstar) - it fails - they fail - [X-class solar flare - done - many others (ref needed but I'm too p**sed)]Galileo - the *zen* PNT system - wait for it - they can't even get the orbital ephemeris figured outGLONASS - ok - thanks to the IndiansBaidu - Ha - for nowInertial - no intrinsic place reference - NO time referenceVisual - ever hear of IFR?VOR, DME, etc - you *really* haven't been paying attention - funding, maintenance, certs, and so forth.6.
- WTF?
OK we just us sailing ships - that worked out well - and should work *forever*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746156</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>djupdal</author>
	<datestamp>1263309480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>500m accuracy for sextants seems unrealistically good to me. My experience is approximately 2km in good conditions and with an accurate clock available.  But even that is good enough for navigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>500m accuracy for sextants seems unrealistically good to me .
My experience is approximately 2km in good conditions and with an accurate clock available .
But even that is good enough for navigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>500m accuracy for sextants seems unrealistically good to me.
My experience is approximately 2km in good conditions and with an accurate clock available.
But even that is good enough for navigation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748556</id>
	<title>Loran and Decca</title>
	<author>pehrs</author>
	<datestamp>1263380580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loran is pretty similar in capabilities and techonology to DECCA, which was widely deployed in Europe. There are some differences in the implementation, but both gives roughly the same precision. The Decca system up here was turned off 1999/2000, as it wasn't considered cost efficient anymore compared to GPS. Decca as I remember it had a number of rather glaring flaws when using it for navigation:</p><p>1: Low precision (several hundreds of meters)<br>2: Varying precision (Depending on the distance and position compared to the masts)<br>3: Initialization problems (had to be started at a know position, entering the wrong starting location would give you incorrect data)<br>4: Unwieldy equipment<br>5: Energy consuming<br>6: General user-unfriendlyness (you had to be an engineer and take a 2 week course to figure out the equipment we carried on the ships)</p><p>Frankly I don't see the need for Decca anymore. If you are in a ship large enough to use Decca you have DGPS anyway. If GPS Is knocked out you go by Radar. If GPS and Radar are knocked out you most likely don't have any Decca system working.</p><p>On the navy side it's obviously nice with passive navigational aids (unlike Radar that makes you a neat target). However, a large antenna that has to be in a fixed position is not exactly a hard target for an ARM (Anti-Radiation Missile)... Which means the navy trains to navigate without such aids anyway.</p><p>Decca was an impressive system, but it's no longer competitive. Like analog TV we can use the wavelengths for better things. I am pretty sure the situation is the same with Loran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loran is pretty similar in capabilities and techonology to DECCA , which was widely deployed in Europe .
There are some differences in the implementation , but both gives roughly the same precision .
The Decca system up here was turned off 1999/2000 , as it was n't considered cost efficient anymore compared to GPS .
Decca as I remember it had a number of rather glaring flaws when using it for navigation : 1 : Low precision ( several hundreds of meters ) 2 : Varying precision ( Depending on the distance and position compared to the masts ) 3 : Initialization problems ( had to be started at a know position , entering the wrong starting location would give you incorrect data ) 4 : Unwieldy equipment5 : Energy consuming6 : General user-unfriendlyness ( you had to be an engineer and take a 2 week course to figure out the equipment we carried on the ships ) Frankly I do n't see the need for Decca anymore .
If you are in a ship large enough to use Decca you have DGPS anyway .
If GPS Is knocked out you go by Radar .
If GPS and Radar are knocked out you most likely do n't have any Decca system working.On the navy side it 's obviously nice with passive navigational aids ( unlike Radar that makes you a neat target ) .
However , a large antenna that has to be in a fixed position is not exactly a hard target for an ARM ( Anti-Radiation Missile ) ... Which means the navy trains to navigate without such aids anyway.Decca was an impressive system , but it 's no longer competitive .
Like analog TV we can use the wavelengths for better things .
I am pretty sure the situation is the same with Loran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loran is pretty similar in capabilities and techonology to DECCA, which was widely deployed in Europe.
There are some differences in the implementation, but both gives roughly the same precision.
The Decca system up here was turned off 1999/2000, as it wasn't considered cost efficient anymore compared to GPS.
Decca as I remember it had a number of rather glaring flaws when using it for navigation:1: Low precision (several hundreds of meters)2: Varying precision (Depending on the distance and position compared to the masts)3: Initialization problems (had to be started at a know position, entering the wrong starting location would give you incorrect data)4: Unwieldy equipment5: Energy consuming6: General user-unfriendlyness (you had to be an engineer and take a 2 week course to figure out the equipment we carried on the ships)Frankly I don't see the need for Decca anymore.
If you are in a ship large enough to use Decca you have DGPS anyway.
If GPS Is knocked out you go by Radar.
If GPS and Radar are knocked out you most likely don't have any Decca system working.On the navy side it's obviously nice with passive navigational aids (unlike Radar that makes you a neat target).
However, a large antenna that has to be in a fixed position is not exactly a hard target for an ARM (Anti-Radiation Missile)... Which means the navy trains to navigate without such aids anyway.Decca was an impressive system, but it's no longer competitive.
Like analog TV we can use the wavelengths for better things.
I am pretty sure the situation is the same with Loran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30752294</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263405240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be pedantic, any country with launch capability to GEO technically has 'anti satellite missiles.' At the velocities things travel in orbit, you don't really need any kind of explosive device to cause critical failure. Hell, if you can deliver a baseball to same orbital position of a spacecraft, you will destroy said spacecraft. They are incredibly delicate. That being said, yes, Russia certainly has the capability and know how to destroy any satellite up to GEO. The Japanese certainly could figure out a design within a couple of years (I honestly don't recall what their native launch capabilities are. The Indians, too, are starting to become better at space based systems (which, in turn, can be used as anti-satellite collision objects.) In fact, there are quite a few small countries attempting to get launch operations into gear. Brazil and South Korea come to mind. There is also the Arianne 5 vehicle which could be used as an anti GEO sat object. Really, if you can get a launch vehicle close to the orbit (meaning same altitude, close mean anomaly) that the target is sitting in, and then detonate or perturb your launch vehicle into breaking up (easy to do with the proper deflection burn, you can collapse the structures if you sheer the vehicle right), then you have created a pretty effective flak type device that will have a high probability of causing critical failure of the target.
<br> <br>
So basically figure out which vehicles can make GEO orbit and those companies/countries all have 'anti satellite missiles.'
<br> <br>
Cheers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be pedantic , any country with launch capability to GEO technically has 'anti satellite missiles .
' At the velocities things travel in orbit , you do n't really need any kind of explosive device to cause critical failure .
Hell , if you can deliver a baseball to same orbital position of a spacecraft , you will destroy said spacecraft .
They are incredibly delicate .
That being said , yes , Russia certainly has the capability and know how to destroy any satellite up to GEO .
The Japanese certainly could figure out a design within a couple of years ( I honestly do n't recall what their native launch capabilities are .
The Indians , too , are starting to become better at space based systems ( which , in turn , can be used as anti-satellite collision objects .
) In fact , there are quite a few small countries attempting to get launch operations into gear .
Brazil and South Korea come to mind .
There is also the Arianne 5 vehicle which could be used as an anti GEO sat object .
Really , if you can get a launch vehicle close to the orbit ( meaning same altitude , close mean anomaly ) that the target is sitting in , and then detonate or perturb your launch vehicle into breaking up ( easy to do with the proper deflection burn , you can collapse the structures if you sheer the vehicle right ) , then you have created a pretty effective flak type device that will have a high probability of causing critical failure of the target .
So basically figure out which vehicles can make GEO orbit and those companies/countries all have 'anti satellite missiles .
' Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be pedantic, any country with launch capability to GEO technically has 'anti satellite missiles.
' At the velocities things travel in orbit, you don't really need any kind of explosive device to cause critical failure.
Hell, if you can deliver a baseball to same orbital position of a spacecraft, you will destroy said spacecraft.
They are incredibly delicate.
That being said, yes, Russia certainly has the capability and know how to destroy any satellite up to GEO.
The Japanese certainly could figure out a design within a couple of years (I honestly don't recall what their native launch capabilities are.
The Indians, too, are starting to become better at space based systems (which, in turn, can be used as anti-satellite collision objects.
) In fact, there are quite a few small countries attempting to get launch operations into gear.
Brazil and South Korea come to mind.
There is also the Arianne 5 vehicle which could be used as an anti GEO sat object.
Really, if you can get a launch vehicle close to the orbit (meaning same altitude, close mean anomaly) that the target is sitting in, and then detonate or perturb your launch vehicle into breaking up (easy to do with the proper deflection burn, you can collapse the structures if you sheer the vehicle right), then you have created a pretty effective flak type device that will have a high probability of causing critical failure of the target.
So basically figure out which vehicles can make GEO orbit and those companies/countries all have 'anti satellite missiles.
'
 
Cheers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746010</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1263308160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh? Thanks to India GLONASS will back to full coverage by the end of this year and some time this decade Galileo should be operational so it's not like the US has any kind of monopoly on positioning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Thanks to India GLONASS will back to full coverage by the end of this year and some time this decade Galileo should be operational so it 's not like the US has any kind of monopoly on positioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Thanks to India GLONASS will back to full coverage by the end of this year and some time this decade Galileo should be operational so it's not like the US has any kind of monopoly on positioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750482</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris.</p></div><p>Why bother? Even if he starts punching down satellites, what are WE going to do about it?  Well, shall I say, what *Could* we do about it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris.Why bother ?
Even if he starts punching down satellites , what are WE going to do about it ?
Well , shall I say , what * Could * we do about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd suggest keeping a close eye on Chuck Norris.Why bother?
Even if he starts punching down satellites, what are WE going to do about it?
Well, shall I say, what *Could* we do about it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30757736</id>
	<title>Re:What, it's still there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263384180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.</p><p>-Matt</p></div><p>They have tried, many, many, many times.  I won't hold my breath that this time will be any more successful than the last.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.-MattThey have tried , many , many , many times .
I wo n't hold my breath that this time will be any more successful than the last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coast guard should have abandoned Loran C years ago.-MattThey have tried, many, many, many times.
I won't hold my breath that this time will be any more successful than the last.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745656</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>thoolie</author>
	<datestamp>1263305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yarrrrrgh matey....ye be a blue suiter of the loranimal variety?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yarrrrrgh matey....ye be a blue suiter of the loranimal variety ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yarrrrrgh matey....ye be a blue suiter of the loranimal variety?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745854</id>
	<title>A drop of piss in the bucket</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.</i> <br> <br>Do you know how many times that the government shits out every day on projects they know will probably never see the light of day? It's so bad at this point that I find 160 million into a 10 year old functional project (open to the public, no less) to be the bargain rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in spite of $ 160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years .
Do you know how many times that the government shits out every day on projects they know will probably never see the light of day ?
It 's so bad at this point that I find 160 million into a 10 year old functional project ( open to the public , no less ) to be the bargain rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.
Do you know how many times that the government shits out every day on projects they know will probably never see the light of day?
It's so bad at this point that I find 160 million into a 10 year old functional project (open to the public, no less) to be the bargain rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646</id>
	<title>Sunk cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.</p></div><p>Econ 101: don't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is in spite of $ 160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.Econ 101 : do n't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is in spite of $160M spent on modernizing LORAN stations over the past 10 years.Econ 101: don't make decisions on the basis of sunk costs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746616</id>
	<title>Re:Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1263313500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the time of the missile attack, the LORAN station was under the command of Lt. Ernest DelBueno, who panicked and attempted to evacuate his American crew by calling in a U.S. Navy transport helicopter from Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Four (HC-4), abandoning the Italians on his base, and in the community on the other end of the island.</p></div><p>Wow, way to live up to your uniform there buddy......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time of the missile attack , the LORAN station was under the command of Lt. Ernest DelBueno , who panicked and attempted to evacuate his American crew by calling in a U.S. Navy transport helicopter from Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Four ( HC-4 ) , abandoning the Italians on his base , and in the community on the other end of the island.Wow , way to live up to your uniform there buddy..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time of the missile attack, the LORAN station was under the command of Lt. Ernest DelBueno, who panicked and attempted to evacuate his American crew by calling in a U.S. Navy transport helicopter from Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Four (HC-4), abandoning the Italians on his base, and in the community on the other end of the island.Wow, way to live up to your uniform there buddy......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745790</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, fella. This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., not the Red Cross. Do you really expect us to discuss news stories on here? Why not Reid's remarks about Obama, the Massachussetts senate race, or what ever will Conan O'Brien do now, or your mama's corn bread recipe? Because they are largely irrelevant. You wanna talk earthquakes, go where they are discussed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , fella .
This is /. , not the Red Cross .
Do you really expect us to discuss news stories on here ?
Why not Reid 's remarks about Obama , the Massachussetts senate race , or what ever will Conan O'Brien do now , or your mama 's corn bread recipe ?
Because they are largely irrelevant .
You wan na talk earthquakes , go where they are discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, fella.
This is /., not the Red Cross.
Do you really expect us to discuss news stories on here?
Why not Reid's remarks about Obama, the Massachussetts senate race, or what ever will Conan O'Brien do now, or your mama's corn bread recipe?
Because they are largely irrelevant.
You wanna talk earthquakes, go where they are discussed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759650</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1263393180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong. <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4318471.html" title="popularmechanics.com">http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4318471.html</a> [popularmechanics.com] <div><p>
You would do well to do some research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
http : //www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4318471.html [ popularmechanics.com ] You would do well to do some research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4318471.html [popularmechanics.com] 
You would do well to do some research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942</id>
	<title>Kill LORAN?</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1263307620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Coast Guard is going to "kill" LORAN?  This choice of words worries me.  What if LORAN decides to strike first, out of self-defense?</p><p>"LORAN", "SKYNET", both are short words with an 'N' in them.  COINCIDENCE?  I think not!</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Coast Guard is going to " kill " LORAN ?
This choice of words worries me .
What if LORAN decides to strike first , out of self-defense ?
" LORAN " , " SKYNET " , both are short words with an 'N ' in them .
COINCIDENCE ? I think not ! steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Coast Guard is going to "kill" LORAN?
This choice of words worries me.
What if LORAN decides to strike first, out of self-defense?
"LORAN", "SKYNET", both are short words with an 'N' in them.
COINCIDENCE?  I think not!steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558</id>
	<title>Been at it for years, and other trivia!</title>
	<author>thoolie</author>
	<datestamp>1263305280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USCG has been having its budget strained for decades, this is just one way to free up some money to dedicate it to port security, search and rescue, or maritime control.</p><p>However, of interesting note, the LORAN stations where some of the most far flung US military installations anywhere in the world! Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Turkey, Spain, Itially....) They've all been handed back, however (most are now derelict).</p><p>Also of interesting note, the USCG LORAN Station Lampedusa was the only US military installation directly attacked in response to the bombing of Libya in the 1980s. They fired a bunch of SCUD missiles a hand full of coasties stationed on an island in the pacific. The guy in charge was a lowly LT.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Coast\_Guard" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Coast\_Guard</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Also, if you have some free time, consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $$. Right now, they are 1/10 the size of the Navy with 1/15 the funding, yet are responsible for all of our waterways, maritime environment, maritime search and rescue, fishery patrols, drug smugglers, illegal immigration, national security, enforcement of maritime law, port security, and much, much more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USCG has been having its budget strained for decades , this is just one way to free up some money to dedicate it to port security , search and rescue , or maritime control.However , of interesting note , the LORAN stations where some of the most far flung US military installations anywhere in the world !
Japan , Korea , Thailand , Vietnam , Turkey , Spain , Itially.... ) They 've all been handed back , however ( most are now derelict ) .Also of interesting note , the USCG LORAN Station Lampedusa was the only US military installation directly attacked in response to the bombing of Libya in the 1980s .
They fired a bunch of SCUD missiles a hand full of coasties stationed on an island in the pacific .
The guy in charge was a lowly LT.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History \ _of \ _the \ _United \ _States \ _Coast \ _Guard [ wikipedia.org ] Also , if you have some free time , consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $ $ .
Right now , they are 1/10 the size of the Navy with 1/15 the funding , yet are responsible for all of our waterways , maritime environment , maritime search and rescue , fishery patrols , drug smugglers , illegal immigration , national security , enforcement of maritime law , port security , and much , much more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USCG has been having its budget strained for decades, this is just one way to free up some money to dedicate it to port security, search and rescue, or maritime control.However, of interesting note, the LORAN stations where some of the most far flung US military installations anywhere in the world!
Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Turkey, Spain, Itially....) They've all been handed back, however (most are now derelict).Also of interesting note, the USCG LORAN Station Lampedusa was the only US military installation directly attacked in response to the bombing of Libya in the 1980s.
They fired a bunch of SCUD missiles a hand full of coasties stationed on an island in the pacific.
The guy in charge was a lowly LT.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Coast\_Guard [wikipedia.org]Also, if you have some free time, consider asking your congressperson to give the USCG more $$.
Right now, they are 1/10 the size of the Navy with 1/15 the funding, yet are responsible for all of our waterways, maritime environment, maritime search and rescue, fishery patrols, drug smugglers, illegal immigration, national security, enforcement of maritime law, port security, and much, much more!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749056</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You know, I'm suspicious of that darn US government, they might arbitrarily turn off the GPS system at any time...so I'm going to use either the <b>Chinese</b> or <b>Russian</b> systems, because those governments have a FAR longer history of openness, tolerance, and a lack of autocratic behaviors than that darn America!"</p><p>Basically, if you believe that the Russians or Chinese aren't even MORE likely to turn off their systems when geopolitically convenient than the US, truly, you need<br>- a history lesson<br>- an understanding of 'willful cognitive dissonance'<br>- to have your tinfoil hat checked for 'unreasonable' bias.</p><p>Before the inevitable flame replies, let me state clearly: the US has done some bad stuff.  No question.  But by ANY measure I'd say it hardly quivers the needle on a Russianor Chinese-calibrated scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You know , I 'm suspicious of that darn US government , they might arbitrarily turn off the GPS system at any time...so I 'm going to use either the Chinese or Russian systems , because those governments have a FAR longer history of openness , tolerance , and a lack of autocratic behaviors than that darn America !
" Basically , if you believe that the Russians or Chinese are n't even MORE likely to turn off their systems when geopolitically convenient than the US , truly , you need- a history lesson- an understanding of 'willful cognitive dissonance'- to have your tinfoil hat checked for 'unreasonable ' bias.Before the inevitable flame replies , let me state clearly : the US has done some bad stuff .
No question .
But by ANY measure I 'd say it hardly quivers the needle on a Russianor Chinese-calibrated scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You know, I'm suspicious of that darn US government, they might arbitrarily turn off the GPS system at any time...so I'm going to use either the Chinese or Russian systems, because those governments have a FAR longer history of openness, tolerance, and a lack of autocratic behaviors than that darn America!
"Basically, if you believe that the Russians or Chinese aren't even MORE likely to turn off their systems when geopolitically convenient than the US, truly, you need- a history lesson- an understanding of 'willful cognitive dissonance'- to have your tinfoil hat checked for 'unreasonable' bias.Before the inevitable flame replies, let me state clearly: the US has done some bad stuff.
No question.
But by ANY measure I'd say it hardly quivers the needle on a Russianor Chinese-calibrated scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748660</id>
	<title>Re:Sunk cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263382320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that the sumitter (or probably kdawson) didn't want to torpedo his own post by including such a lame pun.</p><p>-mobby\_6kl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the sumitter ( or probably kdawson ) did n't want to torpedo his own post by including such a lame pun.-mobby \ _6kl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the sumitter (or probably kdawson) didn't want to torpedo his own post by including such a lame pun.-mobby\_6kl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30760956</id>
	<title>Seneca LORAN station</title>
	<author>nessman</author>
	<datestamp>1263405480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a LORAN station between Rochester and Syracuse in upstate NY - try listening to AM broadcast radio within 10 miles of the facility.  Granted, it's in the middle of nowhere on a decommissioned Army depot that once stored several thousand nuclear weapons, but interference is interference.</p><p>But really, if LORAN went offline tomorrow, 99.999\% of you would never know.  How many of you have a LORAN receiver that you use regularly and rely on?  I didn't think so.  Go on eBay - the smallest handheld unit out there is bigger than the first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\/\otorola "brick" handheld cell phone with a big telescopic antenna for reception... and the installed units require a good size antenna and the unit themselves are a bit bulky as well.</p><p>The argument to keep LORAN in operation is as ludicrous as the argument to keep Morse Code as a requirement for ham radio licensing.  It's obsolete and has been replaced by more gooder technologies.  I have no qualms about using GPS as a primary means of navigation.  But on the other hand - I still keep old fashioned laminated dead tree maps in the car, along with navigational charts in the boat and a topo map in the back pack during hikes just in case... just like most pilots keep sectional charts in their planes too.</p><p>If you get lost and your GPS (or LORAN for you old-timey types) gets lost, dies, breaks, etc... and you don't have a map to find your way out - well that's your own tough shit I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a LORAN station between Rochester and Syracuse in upstate NY - try listening to AM broadcast radio within 10 miles of the facility .
Granted , it 's in the middle of nowhere on a decommissioned Army depot that once stored several thousand nuclear weapons , but interference is interference.But really , if LORAN went offline tomorrow , 99.999 \ % of you would never know .
How many of you have a LORAN receiver that you use regularly and rely on ?
I did n't think so .
Go on eBay - the smallest handheld unit out there is bigger than the first / \ / \ otorola " brick " handheld cell phone with a big telescopic antenna for reception... and the installed units require a good size antenna and the unit themselves are a bit bulky as well.The argument to keep LORAN in operation is as ludicrous as the argument to keep Morse Code as a requirement for ham radio licensing .
It 's obsolete and has been replaced by more gooder technologies .
I have no qualms about using GPS as a primary means of navigation .
But on the other hand - I still keep old fashioned laminated dead tree maps in the car , along with navigational charts in the boat and a topo map in the back pack during hikes just in case... just like most pilots keep sectional charts in their planes too.If you get lost and your GPS ( or LORAN for you old-timey types ) gets lost , dies , breaks , etc... and you do n't have a map to find your way out - well that 's your own tough shit I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a LORAN station between Rochester and Syracuse in upstate NY - try listening to AM broadcast radio within 10 miles of the facility.
Granted, it's in the middle of nowhere on a decommissioned Army depot that once stored several thousand nuclear weapons, but interference is interference.But really, if LORAN went offline tomorrow, 99.999\% of you would never know.
How many of you have a LORAN receiver that you use regularly and rely on?
I didn't think so.
Go on eBay - the smallest handheld unit out there is bigger than the first /\/\otorola "brick" handheld cell phone with a big telescopic antenna for reception... and the installed units require a good size antenna and the unit themselves are a bit bulky as well.The argument to keep LORAN in operation is as ludicrous as the argument to keep Morse Code as a requirement for ham radio licensing.
It's obsolete and has been replaced by more gooder technologies.
I have no qualms about using GPS as a primary means of navigation.
But on the other hand - I still keep old fashioned laminated dead tree maps in the car, along with navigational charts in the boat and a topo map in the back pack during hikes just in case... just like most pilots keep sectional charts in their planes too.If you get lost and your GPS (or LORAN for you old-timey types) gets lost, dies, breaks, etc... and you don't have a map to find your way out - well that's your own tough shit I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746704</id>
	<title>So, lets say you need a 10 Mhz Reference</title>
	<author>NuttyBee</author>
	<datestamp>1263314220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And your GPS satellites got blasted out of orbit or a solar storm wipes out all of those satellite resources?</p><p>Your SONET networks and cell phone stuff are gonna need it.  Your 8-VSB exiter may as well.  Single Freq. Networks.</p><p>Where do you get an accurate reference from?</p><p>WWV?    I haven't seen anything other than a GPS reference at any telco facility/cell site.  If there ever is a loss of GPS, it's gonna be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your GPS satellites got blasted out of orbit or a solar storm wipes out all of those satellite resources ? Your SONET networks and cell phone stuff are gon na need it .
Your 8-VSB exiter may as well .
Single Freq .
Networks.Where do you get an accurate reference from ? WWV ?
I have n't seen anything other than a GPS reference at any telco facility/cell site .
If there ever is a loss of GPS , it 's gon na be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your GPS satellites got blasted out of orbit or a solar storm wipes out all of those satellite resources?Your SONET networks and cell phone stuff are gonna need it.
Your 8-VSB exiter may as well.
Single Freq.
Networks.Where do you get an accurate reference from?WWV?
I haven't seen anything other than a GPS reference at any telco facility/cell site.
If there ever is a loss of GPS, it's gonna be interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748938</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263386700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown hasn't even reached orbit yet.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon\_1\_Flight\_4" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wanna try that again?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown has n't even reached orbit yet .
Wan na try that again ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider that the highest private rocket ever flown hasn't even reached orbit yet.
Wanna try that again?
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749246</id>
	<title>Re:I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263390240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you for the most part, though I might also throw the EU and India into the discussion of who has or could readily obtain an anti-satellite capability.  What it boils down to is that the only way GPS goes down is if the USA wants it to, we don't maintain it as satellites age, or we are in the midst of WWIII and are probably about to see a LOT of nukes go off and have more important worries.  I hope that they mothball this stuff as much as possible just in case as deploying new systems in wartime is not easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you for the most part , though I might also throw the EU and India into the discussion of who has or could readily obtain an anti-satellite capability .
What it boils down to is that the only way GPS goes down is if the USA wants it to , we do n't maintain it as satellites age , or we are in the midst of WWIII and are probably about to see a LOT of nukes go off and have more important worries .
I hope that they mothball this stuff as much as possible just in case as deploying new systems in wartime is not easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you for the most part, though I might also throw the EU and India into the discussion of who has or could readily obtain an anti-satellite capability.
What it boils down to is that the only way GPS goes down is if the USA wants it to, we don't maintain it as satellites age, or we are in the midst of WWIII and are probably about to see a LOT of nukes go off and have more important worries.
I hope that they mothball this stuff as much as possible just in case as deploying new systems in wartime is not easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745932</id>
	<title>I'm surprised this is still around</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263307560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, I'm surprised this is still around. Everyone I know has switched over from LORAN-C to GPS or other systems at least a decade ago. Even aside from the cost of maintaining the system to the government, the system is clearly inferior to GPS. For one, since the towers are much lower compared to satelites, it is much easier to have your signal blocked. The system isn't nearly as accurate (as mentioned in the summary) and is also in many contexts much more likely to simply fail. The system also doesn't work if one is far away from land. This is an extremely reasonable cost-saving measure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I 'm surprised this is still around .
Everyone I know has switched over from LORAN-C to GPS or other systems at least a decade ago .
Even aside from the cost of maintaining the system to the government , the system is clearly inferior to GPS .
For one , since the towers are much lower compared to satelites , it is much easier to have your signal blocked .
The system is n't nearly as accurate ( as mentioned in the summary ) and is also in many contexts much more likely to simply fail .
The system also does n't work if one is far away from land .
This is an extremely reasonable cost-saving measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I'm surprised this is still around.
Everyone I know has switched over from LORAN-C to GPS or other systems at least a decade ago.
Even aside from the cost of maintaining the system to the government, the system is clearly inferior to GPS.
For one, since the towers are much lower compared to satelites, it is much easier to have your signal blocked.
The system isn't nearly as accurate (as mentioned in the summary) and is also in many contexts much more likely to simply fail.
The system also doesn't work if one is far away from land.
This is an extremely reasonable cost-saving measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338</id>
	<title>I am the Loran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas<br><br>-I'm just sayin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas-I 'm just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I speak for the Cs -I mean Seas-I'm just sayin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes the real answer seems to be a complimentary system, that isn't owned by the US. Fortunately, people realized this and the Galileo project was born. After some initial hissing on both sides, the US and EU have worked it out so they'll be compatible, and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems. That way should one be turned off, or break or whatever, the other still works, and when both are up it should be even more accurate.</p><p>Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison. As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating. The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008, however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.</p><p>Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the real answer seems to be a complimentary system , that is n't owned by the US .
Fortunately , people realized this and the Galileo project was born .
After some initial hissing on both sides , the US and EU have worked it out so they 'll be compatible , and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems .
That way should one be turned off , or break or whatever , the other still works , and when both are up it should be even more accurate.Unfortunately , Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison .
As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating .
The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008 , however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.Thus as it stands , the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the real answer seems to be a complimentary system, that isn't owned by the US.
Fortunately, people realized this and the Galileo project was born.
After some initial hissing on both sides, the US and EU have worked it out so they'll be compatible, and a single receiver will be able to get data from both GNSS systems.
That way should one be turned off, or break or whatever, the other still works, and when both are up it should be even more accurate.Unfortunately, Galileo is being run by the EU who seems to be able to make the US congress look positively efficient by comparison.
As such there are currently 0 Galileo satellites operating.
The whole system was supposed to be online by the end of 2008, however now they are targeting having a single satellite up by the end of 2010.Thus as it stands, the US still does have complete control over GNSS systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic.</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1263305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No country wants to maintain them? What are you smoking?</p><p>The GPS system is launched and operated by the US Air Force, first and foremost for US military activities. It wasn't some magical pan-national committee that put the satellites into orbit and built the ground stations. And the USAF maintains them and modernizes them. If GPS goes offline, all those fancy GPS guided weapons go offline too.</p><p>As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No country wants to maintain them ?
What are you smoking ? The GPS system is launched and operated by the US Air Force , first and foremost for US military activities .
It was n't some magical pan-national committee that put the satellites into orbit and built the ground stations .
And the USAF maintains them and modernizes them .
If GPS goes offline , all those fancy GPS guided weapons go offline too.As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No country wants to maintain them?
What are you smoking?The GPS system is launched and operated by the US Air Force, first and foremost for US military activities.
It wasn't some magical pan-national committee that put the satellites into orbit and built the ground stations.
And the USAF maintains them and modernizes them.
If GPS goes offline, all those fancy GPS guided weapons go offline too.As for redundancy... put two GPS receivers on your ship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753178</id>
	<title>No worries ... professional help is on the way ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1263408300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are watching too many movies, There are no such thing as AI systems and conspiracies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Please hold, for the grey goo to do it's work, it won't hurt, I promise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are watching too many movies , There are no such thing as AI systems and conspiracies ...Please hold , for the grey goo to do it 's work , it wo n't hurt , I promise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are watching too many movies, There are no such thing as AI systems and conspiracies ...Please hold, for the grey goo to do it's work, it won't hurt, I promise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745514</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263304980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>200m is good enough<br>
<br>
hell, 1km is good enough.<br>
<br>
The submitter needs to learn how to use a sextant. They appear to get you about 500m accuracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>200m is good enough hell , 1km is good enough .
The submitter needs to learn how to use a sextant .
They appear to get you about 500m accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200m is good enough

hell, 1km is good enough.
The submitter needs to learn how to use a sextant.
They appear to get you about 500m accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746116</id>
	<title>Re:One down, many more to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263309120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright now lets count the ones you listed that ACTUALLY WORK!</p><p>1. GPS... well GPS can't backup itself<br>2. Galileo, EGNOS. GLONASS... Valid<br>3. Inertial... On a BOAT, Rocking back and forth, in water that has currents, this is just "Dead Reckoning" but more costly.<br>4. Visual, aided by Sonar and Radar... Ok this sort of works but only in well documented areas and only if you have the appropriate terrain maps, the Sea is one of the least explored places on the earth by percentage so there's alot of places (namely almost everywhere not along a coast) where this will do no good at all.<br>5. VOR, other aviation aids... perhaps your best idea<br>6. Old Fashion Navigation... did you know they called this "Dead Reckoning" for a reason, may as well use inertial sensors.</p><p>In summary alot of your ideas are not applicable to anything larger than a Fishing Boat within sight or still in the same channel it started on. Once you got into any open water or traveled any significant distance from your start point the error rate's are just to high to become acceptable. In modern maritime navigation along rivers you need to be able to stay in shipping lanes also, if you don't then you will crash into shore, run aground, or become 2 boats in one with another freighter. The shipping lanes are marked with buoys but its not like you can stop or turn a 1000 ft. freighter on a dime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright now lets count the ones you listed that ACTUALLY WORK ! 1 .
GPS... well GPS ca n't backup itself2 .
Galileo , EGNOS .
GLONASS... Valid3 .
Inertial... On a BOAT , Rocking back and forth , in water that has currents , this is just " Dead Reckoning " but more costly.4 .
Visual , aided by Sonar and Radar... Ok this sort of works but only in well documented areas and only if you have the appropriate terrain maps , the Sea is one of the least explored places on the earth by percentage so there 's alot of places ( namely almost everywhere not along a coast ) where this will do no good at all.5 .
VOR , other aviation aids... perhaps your best idea6 .
Old Fashion Navigation... did you know they called this " Dead Reckoning " for a reason , may as well use inertial sensors.In summary alot of your ideas are not applicable to anything larger than a Fishing Boat within sight or still in the same channel it started on .
Once you got into any open water or traveled any significant distance from your start point the error rate 's are just to high to become acceptable .
In modern maritime navigation along rivers you need to be able to stay in shipping lanes also , if you do n't then you will crash into shore , run aground , or become 2 boats in one with another freighter .
The shipping lanes are marked with buoys but its not like you can stop or turn a 1000 ft. freighter on a dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright now lets count the ones you listed that ACTUALLY WORK!1.
GPS... well GPS can't backup itself2.
Galileo, EGNOS.
GLONASS... Valid3.
Inertial... On a BOAT, Rocking back and forth, in water that has currents, this is just "Dead Reckoning" but more costly.4.
Visual, aided by Sonar and Radar... Ok this sort of works but only in well documented areas and only if you have the appropriate terrain maps, the Sea is one of the least explored places on the earth by percentage so there's alot of places (namely almost everywhere not along a coast) where this will do no good at all.5.
VOR, other aviation aids... perhaps your best idea6.
Old Fashion Navigation... did you know they called this "Dead Reckoning" for a reason, may as well use inertial sensors.In summary alot of your ideas are not applicable to anything larger than a Fishing Boat within sight or still in the same channel it started on.
Once you got into any open water or traveled any significant distance from your start point the error rate's are just to high to become acceptable.
In modern maritime navigation along rivers you need to be able to stay in shipping lanes also, if you don't then you will crash into shore, run aground, or become 2 boats in one with another freighter.
The shipping lanes are marked with buoys but its not like you can stop or turn a 1000 ft. freighter on a dime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30760906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30757736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30752294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30751996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_223241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749056
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30760906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745846
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30759650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30757736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30750482
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30752294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30749480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30753744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_223241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30748540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30754186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30751996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30745836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30747190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_223241.30746116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
